Introduction To Dark Matter Experiments

January 28, 2011 1:7 WSPC - Proceedings Trim Size: 9in x 6in SchneeTASIPDF
1
Introduction to Dark Matter Experiments
R. W. Schnee
Department of Physics, Syracuse University,

Syracuse, New York 12344, United States
E-mail: rwschnee@phy.syr.edu
This is a set of four lectures presented at the Theoretical Advanced Study
Institute (TASI-09) in June 2009. I provide an introduction to experiments
designed to detect WIMP dark matter directly, focussing on building intuitive
understanding of the characteristics of potential WIMP signals and the ex-
perimental techniques. After deriving the characteristics of potential signals
in direct-detection experiments for standard WIMP models, I summarize the
general experimental methods shared by most direct-detection experiments
and review the advantages, challenges, and status of such searches (as of late
2009). Experiments are already probing SUSY models, with best limits on the
spin-independent coupling below 10
7
pb.
Keywords: WIMPs, cold dark matter, SUSY, dark matter halo
1. Introduction
A variety of astrophysical observations
1,2
indicate that 83% of the matter in
the Universe is nonbaryonic and dark, presumably in the form of elementary
particles produced in the early Universe. Because no such particles have yet
been identied in particle accelerators, these observations require new fun-
damental particle physics. Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs
3
)
form a particularly interesting generic class of new-particle candidates be-
cause they naturally provide about the inferred amount of this nonbaryonic
dark matter,
4
a result dubbed the WIMP miracle.
WIMPs would be produced thermally in the early Universe. Because
they interact only weakly, their annihilation rate would become insigni-
cant as the Universe expands, thus freezing out a relic abundance of the
particles (for a pedagogical discussion, see e.g. Refs. 58). The expected
WIMP density would be the same as that of the nonbaryonic dark matter
if the WIMP velocity-averaged annihilation cross section is 1 pb, so that
the WIMP mass is 100 GeV/c
2
.
a
r
X
i
v
:
1
1
0
1
.
5
2
0
5
v
1

[
a
s
t
r
o
-
p
h
.
C
O
]

2
7

J
a
n

2
0
1
1
2
Remarkably, extensions to the Standard Model motivated entirely by
particle physics predict particles with the same cross section and mass as
these dark-matter WIMPs. Detection of the W and Z bosons indicates
that the electroweak symmetry is spontaneously broken at a scale of
100 GeV/c
2
. Whatever physics solves the hierarchy problem associated with
this symmetry breaking be it supersymmetry,
5,911
extra dimensions,
1216
or something else gives rise to additional particles. If an appropriate
(often independently motivated) discrete symmetry exists, the lightest such
particle is stable. This particle is then weakly interacting, massive, and
stable it is a WIMP. Thus, particle theorists are almost justied in
saying that the problem of electroweak symmetry breaking predicts the
existence of WIMP dark matter.
17
Although the argument for WIMP dark matter is generic, supersymme-
try dominates the discussion as a particularly well-motivated model. Su-
persymmetry interactions arise in theories of quantum gravity, stabilize the
Higgs mass hierarchy problem, predict the observed value of sin
2
W
, and
over a broad range of parameter space predict cosmologically signicant
relic WIMP densities.
WIMPs can potentially be detected by three complementary methods.
They may be produced and detected (indirectly) at accelerators such as
the Large Hadron Collider (see e.g. Ref. 18). Relic WIMPs may be de-
tected indirectly when they clump in massive astrophysical objects, increas-
ing their annihilation rate enough that their annihilation products may be
detectable.
11,1921
Many potential (or suggested
2228
) indirect signals are
ambiguous, with alternate astrophysical explanations (see Refs. 7,29 and
references therein). Some potential indirect signals, however, would be com-
pelling. Annihilation in the Sun or Earth would produce higher-energy neu-
trinos than any other known process. These neutrinos could be observed in
neutrino telescopes such as IceCube
30,31
or ANTARES.
32,33
Either FERMI
or ground-based air Cerenkov telescopes may detect distinctive gamma-ray
features from the galactic center or from sub-halos.
3438
Relic WIMPs may also be detected directly when they scatter o nu-
clei in terrestrial detectors.
39,40
This article oers an introduction to these
direct-detection experiments. Section 2 includes derivations and explana-
tions of the characteristics of potential signals in direct-detection experi-
ments for standard WIMP models. Section 3 summarizes the general exper-
imental methods shared by most direct-detection experiments and discusses
particular experiments briey, emphasizing the relative advantages and dif-
ferent challenges and capabilities of the various approaches.
3
2. WIMP-nucleus elastic scattering: from model to signal
Understanding experiments designed for direct detection of dark matter
begins with the observables of potential signals. In this section we consider
the observables of any model that predicts standard WIMP-nucleus elastic
scattering (see Neil Weiners contribution to these proceedings
8
for discus-
sion of more speculative models with non-standard scattering). Following
the reviews by Lewin and Smith,
41
and Jungman, Kamionkowski and Gri-
est,
5
this section derives how the observed WIMP interaction rate depends
on energy, target, time, and direction.
2.1. Spin-independent and spin-dependent cross sections
Using Fermis Golden Rule, we can divide the energy dependence of the dif-
ferential WIMP-nucleon cross section into a term
0WN
that is independent
of the momentum transfer and a term F
2
(q) (known as the form factor)
containing the entire dependence on the momentum transfer q:
d
WN
(q)
dq
2
=
1
v
2
|M|
2
=

0WN
F
2
(q)
4
2
A
v
2
. (1)
Here, v is the velocity of the WIMP in the lab frame, and the WIMP-
nucleus reduced mass
A
M
M
A
/(M
+ M
A
) in terms of the WIMP
mass M
and the mass M

A
of a target nucleus of atomic mass A. Since the
WIMPs are nonrelativistic, the zero-momentum cross section for a WIMP
of arbitrary spin and general Lorentz-invariant WIMP-nucleus cross section
may be written in terms of a spin-independent (mostly scalar) and a spin-
dependent (mostly axial vector) term:
0WN
=
4
2
A
[Zf
p
+ (AZ)f
n
]
2
+
32G
2
F
2
A
J + 1
J
(a
p
S
p
+a
n
S
n
)
2
.
(2)
The proof of this claim makes a good exercise for the reader; solution may be
found in Ref. 42. Here f
p
and f
n
(a
p
and a
n
) are eective spin-independent
(spin-dependent) couplings of the WIMP to the proton and neutron, respec-
tively. Together with the WIMP mass, M
, these parameters contain all the

particle physics information of the model under consideration. The other
parameters describe the target material: its atomic number Z, total nuclear
spin J, and the expectation values of the proton and neutron spins within
the nucleus S
p,n
= N|S
p,n
|N. For free nucleons, S
p
= S
n
= 0.5. Ta-
ble 1 from Ref. 43 lists values of S
p
and S
n
for materials commonly
used for dark matter searches, although some are subject to signicant
nuclear-physics uncertainties.
4
Table 1. Values of the atomic number Z, the total nuclear spin J, and the expec-
tation values of the proton and neutron spins within the nucleus Sp,n for various
nuclei with odd numbers of protons or neutrons, leading to the relative sensitivities
to spin-dependent interactions shown, from Refs. 5,43 and the references contained
therein.
Odd 4Sp
2
(J + 1) 4Sn
2
(J + 1)
Nucleus Z Nuc. J Sp Sn 3J 3J
19
F 9 p 1/2 0.477 -0.004 9.110
1
6.410
5
23
Na 11 p 3/2 0.248 0.020 1.310
1
8.910
4
27
Al 13 p 5/2 -0.343 0.030 2.210
1
1.710
3
29
Si 14 n 1/2 -0.002 0.130 1.610
5
6.810
2
35
Cl 17 p 3/2 -0.083 0.004 1.510
2
3.610
5
39
K 19 p 3/2 -0.180 0.050 7.210
2
5.610
3
73
Ge 32 n 9/2 0.030 0.378 1.510
3
2.310
1
93
Nb 41 p 9/2 0.460 0.080 3.410
1
1.010
2
125
Te 52 n 1/2 0.001 0.287 4.010
6
3.310
1
127
I 53 p 5/2 0.309 0.075 1.810
1
1.010
2
129
Xe 54 n 1/2 0.028 0.359 3.110
3
5.210
1
131
Xe 54 n 3/2 -0.009 -0.227 1.810
4
1.210
1
For many models, f
p
f
n
, so the spin-independent WIMP-nucleus cross
section
0WN,SI

4
2
A
f
2
n
A
2
. (3)
The dependence of this cross section on the target material may be factored
out by rewriting this result as
0WN,SI
=
SI
2
A
2
n
A
2
, (4)
where
n
is the reduced mass of the WIMP-nucleon system, and the (target-
independent) spin-independent cross section of a WIMP on a single nucleon
SI

4
2
n
f
2
n
. (5)
This WIMP-nucleon cross section
SI
may be used to compare experimen-
tal results to theory and to each other. A given model predicts particular
combinations of
SI
and M
; dierent experiments produce limits on

SI
as
functions of M
by translating limits on the WIMP-nucleus cross-section

to limits on
SI
using equation 4. The dependence on
2
A
A
2
in eqn. 4 indi-
cates the advantage of experiments using relatively heavy target materials
(but see the eects of the form factor in Sec. 2.3). For a 50 GeV/c
2
WIMP
incident on a target with A = 50,
2
A
/
2
n
= 625, so the spin-independent
5
WIMP-nucleus cross section is larger than the WIMP-nucleon cross section
by a factor > 10
6
.
The situation for spin-dependent interactions is quite dierent.
43
First
of all, contributions from the spin-dependent proton and neutron couplings
often cancel, so it is important to quote limits on the spin-dependent in-
teraction on neutrons separately from that on protons, each under the as-
sumption that the other interaction is negligible. Furthermore, while the
coherent interaction on the nucleus results in a spin-independent cross sec-
tion that scales with A
2
since the contribution of each nucleon adds inside
the matrix element, the spin-dependent contributions of nucleons with op-
posite spins cancel, so that the total spin-dependent cross section depends
on the net spin of the nucleus. As shown in Table 1, nuclei with even num-
bers of protons have nearly no net proton spin and essentially no sensitivity
to spin-dependent interactions on protons, and nuclei with even numbers
of neutrons similarly have almost no sensitivity to spin-dependent interac-
tions on neutrons. Argon, with even numbers of protons and neutrons for
all signicant isotopes, is thus insensitive to spin-dependent interactions.
Many materials used as WIMP targets (Ge, Si, Xe) have even numbers of
protons and hence are insensitive to spin-dependent interactions on pro-
tons; only some isotopes of these targets (and hence only a fraction of the
detectors active mass) have sensitivity to spin-dependent interactions on
neutrons. Typically, sensitivity to spin-dependent interactions on protons
requires alternate target materials, often resulting in worse backgrounds or
background rejection and lower sensitivity to spin-independent interactions.
The relative sensitivity of a material to spin-dependent interactions is sum-
marized by its scaling factors 4S
p
2
(J + 1)/3J and 4S
n
2
(J + 1)/3J,
which are listed in Table 1. As with spin-independent limits, experimenters
quote limits on target-independent quantities: the spin-dependent WIMP-
proton cross section
SDp
24G
2
F
2
p
a
2
p
/ and the spin-dependent WIMP-
neutron cross section
SDn
24G
2
F
2
n
a
2
n
/.
The lack of benet from the coherent interaction for spin-dependent
interactions results in most models being more accessible experimentally
via their spin-independent interactions than by their spin-dependent inter-
actions. As shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, current experiments are already
constraining MSSM models based on their spin-independent couplings, but
none is yet sensitive enough to constrain such models based on their spin-
dependent couplings, despite the fact that spin-dependent couplings are
typically 3000 larger than spin-independent couplings.
6
WIMP Mass [GeV/c
2
]
C
r
o
s
s
-
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

[
p
b
]

(
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
s
e
d

t
o

n
u
c
l
e
o
n
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-8
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
Fig. 1. Upper limits on the spin-independent WIMP-nucleon coupling
SI
under
the standard assumptions about the Galactic halo described in the text. Most sensi-
tive limits are from cryogenic experiments (solid) CDMS
44
(black), EDELWEISS-II
45
(medium gray), and CRESST
46
(light gray), and two-phase noble experiments (dashed)
XENON10
47
(black), ZEPLIN-III
48
(medium gray), and WArP
49
(light gray). Current
experiments already exclude part of the parameter space of MSSM models (shaded).
50
Figure made using the Dark Matter Limit Plotter.
51
2.2. The WIMP recoil energy spectrum
It is illuminating to calculate the energy spectrum for the case of zero
momentum-transfer (i.e. taking F
2
1). Furthermore, simply multiplying
this spectrum by the energy dependence of F
2
(q), rather than including
the form factor F
2
within the kinematic integral to follow, is convenient
and usually adequate.
The energy spectrum arises due to the familiar kinematics of elastic
scattering. In the center-of-momentum frame, the WIMP scatters o a nu-
cleus through an angle , with cos uniformly distributed between 1 and
1 for the isotropic scattering that occurs with zero-momentum transfer.
If the WIMPs initial energy in the lab frame E
i
= M
v
2
/2, the nucleus
recoils with energy
E
R
= E
i
r
(1 cos )
2
(6)
7
WIMP Mass (GeV/c
2
)
S
D

W
I
M
P
n
e
u
t
r
o
n

C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
p
b
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
WIMP Mass (GeV/c
2
)
S
D

W
I
M
P
p
r
o
t
o
n

C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
p
b
)
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
Fig. 2. Upper limits on the spin-dependent WIMP-neutron coupling
SDn
(left) and
the spin-dependent WIMP-proton coupling
SDp
(right) under the standard assump-
tions about the Galactic halo described in the text. The most sensitive limits on
SDn
are from the same experiments shown in Fig. 1 (with the same linetypes): XENON10
52
(black dashes), ZEPLIN-III
53
(medium gray dashes), and CDMS
44
(black solid). Note
ZEPLIN-III limits were calculated with a scaling factor 2 smaller than that used for
XENON10. Due to the low intrinsic sensitivity of leading (Xe and Ge) experiments
to spin-dependent interactions on protons, the most sensitive limits on
SDp
are from
experiments with only modest sensitivity to spin-independent interactions: PICASSO
54
(6-sided stars), COUPP
55
(5-pointed stars), KIMS
56
(circles), and NAIAD
57
(). Limits
from indirect search experiments SuperKamiokande
58
(points) and IceCube
31
(dotted)
make additional assumptions about branching fractions to neutrinos. Current exper-
iments do not exclude any part of the parameter space of the same MSSM models
(shaded)
50
shown in Fig. 1, despite the fact that the predicted spin-dependent cross sec-
tions are 3000 larger than the spin-independent ones. Figure made using the Dark
Matter Limit Plotter.
51
(in the lab frame), where
r
4
2
A
M
M
A
=
4M
M
A
(M
+M
A
)
2
(7)
is a dimensionless parameter related to the reduced mass
A
. Note that
r 1, with r = 1 only if M
= M
A
. For this isotropic scattering, the
recoil energy is therefore uniformly distributed between 0E
i
r. As shown in
Fig. 3, the dierential contribution to the dierential rate for a given initial
WIMP energy
d
dR
dE
R
(E
R
)
=
dR(E
i
)
E
i
r
, (8)
8
dR
dE
R
E
R
E
i
r
dR(E
i
)
dR(E
i
)
E
i
r
Fig. 3. Plot showing schematically how contributions to the dierential rate dR/dE
R
for dierent values of the initial WIMP energy E
i
add. We dene total dierential rate
dR/dE
R
of WIMPs with initial energy E
i
to be dR(E
i
). For a WIMP initial energy
E
i
, the recoil energy E
R
is uniformly distributed between 0E
i
r, so dR(E
i
) contributes
equally to the rates of all recoils between 0E
i
r, as depicted by the shaded area in the
gure. The contribution to the dierential rate at a given recoil energy (the height of
the shaded area in the gure) is simply the area divided by the length, or dR(E
i
)/(E
i
r).
The total dierential rate can then be found by summing all the boxes, i.e. integrating
dR(E
i
)/(E
i
r) for all E
i
.
so
dR
dE
R
(E
R
) =
Emax
Emin
dR(E
i
)
E
i
r
. (9)
The maximum initial WIMP energy may be taken as innity as an initial ap-
proximation, or more accurately may be based upon the Galactic escape ve-
locity, v
esc
: E
max
= M
v
2
esc
/2. To cause a recoil of energy E
R
, the minimum
initial WIMP energy E
min
= E
R
/r (for head-on scattering, with = ),
and the minimum WIMP velocity v
min
=
2E
min
/M
2E
R
/(rM
).
To determine the rate of WIMP-nucleus scattering, it is helpful to imag-
ine the motion of the target nucleus relative to WIMPs with velocity v in
the lab frame. In time dt, each nucleus interacts with any WIMP inside
a volume dV = vdt, where is the WIMP-nucleus cross section. The
number of WIMPs inside the volume moving with velocity v
dN = n
0
f(v +v
E
)vdt, (10)
where the local WIMP number density n
0
=
/M
, where
is the mass
density of WIMPs in the galaxy, estimated from studies of Galactic dynam-
9
ics to be about 0.3 GeV/(c
2
cm
3
) (with wide systematic uncertainties
5962
).
Note that the number density based on
= 0.3 GeV/(c
2
cm
3
) is really an
upper limit, since Galactic dark matter may include species other than
WIMPs. We use the fact that the velocity v
g
of the WIMP in the galaxy
is the vector sum of the WIMP velocity with respect to the Earth v and
the velocity v
E
of the Earth with respect to the Galaxy. We assume that
the WIMPs velocities in the frame of the Galaxy follow the Maxwellian
distribution:
f(v +v
E
) =
e
(v+vE)
2
/v
2
0
k
(11)
where v
0
= 220 20 km/s is the local circular velocity,
63
and k is a nor-
malization factor. This simple distribution is not expected to be especially
accurate, but it provides a useful standard. See e.g. Refs. 64,65 for discus-
sion of alternatives that are likely more accurate, and see Section 2.4 below
for discussion of the impact of uncertainties on a WIMP discovery.
The dierential interaction rate per kilogram of detector is then the
product of the number of interactions per nucleon with the number of nuclei
per kg of material:
dR =
N
0
A
n
0
f(v +v
E
)vd
3
v (12)
where N
0
is Avogadros number, so that N
0
/A is the number of nuclei per
kilogram of material.
It is instructive (and reasonably accurate, as shown below) to consider
the simplied case ignoring the Earth velocity and the Galaxys escape
velocity (i.e. setting v
E
= 0, v
esc
= ), for which the integral is trivial.
After setting
R
0

2
N
0
A
n
0
v, (13)
we get
dR
dE
R
(E
R
) =

ER/r
1
1
2
M
v
2
r
R
0
2v
4
0
ve
v
2
/v
2
0
4v
2
dv
(14)
=
R
0
1
2
M
v
2
0

vmin
2
v
2
0
e
v
2
/v
2
0
vdv (15)
=
R
0
E
0
r
e
ER/E0r
, (16)
where E
0
M
v
2
0
/2 is the most probable WIMP incident energy. The
mean recoil energy is easily seen: E
R
= E
0
r. Since r 1, the mean recoil
10
energy E
R
= E
0
only if the WIMP mass is equal to the mass of the target
nucleus; E
R
< E
0
both for smaller and for larger WIMP masses. As an
example, since v
0
220 km/s (0.75 10
3
)c, M
= M
A
= 50 GeV/c
2
would result in
E
R
= E
0
r =
1
2
M
v
2
0
15 keV. (17)
A dierent target mass would result in even lower E
R
. This low energy
sets the rst challenge for direct detection experiments they must have
low energy thresholds, much lower than past solar neutrino experiments for
example.
From the exponential form of the approximate energy spectrum, we see
that R
0
is the total WIMP rate. If we plug known numerical values into
equation 13, we nd
R
0

500
M
(GeV/c
2
)
0WN
1 pb
0.4 GeV/cm
3
events kg
1
day
1
. (18)
A 50 GeV/c
2
WIMP with a WIMP-nucleus cross section
0WN
= 1 pb (so
that the spin-independent WIMP-nucleon cross section
SI
10
6
pb, or
the spin-dependent WIMP-nucleon cross section
SDp,n
10
3
pb) results
in about 10 events/(kg day). Since the energy spectrum is a falling expo-
nential, a low energy threshold is critical to detect most of these events; the
fraction of events above an energy threshold E
th
is e
E
th
/E0r
.
The dependence of the energy spectrum on the WIMP mass may be
seen easily from equation 16. The mean recoil energy
E
R
= rE
0

v
2
0
(1 +M
A
/M
)
2

M
2
if M
M
A
constant if M
M
A
. (19)
Heavy WIMPs all yield about the same energy spectrum. This result holds
for calculations made including the Earth velocity, Galaxy escape velocity,
and nuclear form factor, as shown in Fig. 4.
WIMPs with velocities above the Galaxys escape velocity are likely to
have already escaped. The nite escape velocity ( 540 km/s 2 10
3
c
according to the RAVE survey
66
) alters the recoil spectrum slightly and
produces a cut-o at
E
max
=
1
2
rM
v
2
esc
100 keV. (20)
The cuto energy has the same dependence on the WIMP mass as the mean
recoil energy (see equation 19) since
E
max
=
v
2
esc
v
2
0
E
R
6E
R
. (21)
11
Ge
Fig. 4. Expected interaction rate on Ge as a function of recoil energy for dierent
WIMP masses M (as shown in the legend in units of GeV/c
2
), for most probable
WIMP velocity v
0
= 270 km/s, on the high end of possible values. The spectra of lower-
mass WIMPs are softer and cut o at lower energy due to the Galactic escape velocity.
The spectra of WIMPs heavier than the target nucleus are nearly identical. The rate is
10 larger for a 100 GeV/c
2
WIMP than for a 1000 GeV/c
2
WIMP since there would be
10 more 100 GeV/c
2
WIMPs than 1000 GeV/c
2
WIMPs. Higher-mass spectra deviate
from straight lines due to non-unity form factor F
2
(see Section 2.3).
Hence, higher-mass WIMPs produce recoils that are easier to detect and
have cuto energies so high as to usually be negligible. The cuto energy,
however, is signicant for low-mass WIMPs (see Fig. 4); experiments will
have no sensitivity at all to WIMPs of low enough masses due to the cuto.
Since the Galactic escape velocity is not known especially well, caution
should be taken when drawing conclusions that may be sensitive to the the
number of WIMPs with velocities at or near the assumed cuto energy. It
should also be noted that for historical reasons (in order to quote limits
using the same assumptions as previous experiments) most experimenters
routinely assume the standard halo described in Ref. 67, which uses a
value v
esc
= 650 km/s, somewhat above the 90% upper limit quoted in the
more recent RAVE survey.
66
The dependence of the energy spectrum on target mass M
A
(ignoring
the form factor F
2
) is entirely through the r parameter in Eqn. 19 or
Eqn. 20. For a given WIMP mass, the cut-o energy E
max
and the mean
recoil energy E
0
are largest for targets whose masses most closely match the
12
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0.5
1
1.5
Recoil Energy (keV)
R
a
t
i
o

(
A
c
t
u
a
l
/
A
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
)
19
38
76
152
305
20 40 60 80 100
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Recoil Energy (keV)
R
a
t
e
38 GeV WIMP
exact
exponential
residuals x 100
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
WIMP Mass (GeV)
F
i
t

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r

c
2
Fig. 5. Left: Comparison of the spectrum using the exponential approximation (eqn. 23
with no cut o energy Emax) to the full calculation (eqn. 22) for a WIMP with mass
M = 38 GeV (solid overlapping curves). The residuals are shown (dashed) after scal-
ing by 100. At higher energies, the fractional deviations become larger but the absolute
deviations remain small. The shape of the residuals > 80 keV is from applying the cut-
o energy Emax in the full calculation but not to the exponential approximation. The
approximation is slightly less accurate for lower-mass WIMPs. Right: Dependence of
spectral t parameter c
2
on WIMP mass M for a Ge detector with a 10-keV threshold.
Use of the advised approximate value,
41
c
2
= 0.561 (dashed), produces not more than a
50% error for all WIMP masses.
WIMP mass. As shown below, including the form factor makes the energy
spectra of more massive targets softer.
The full calculation of the energy spectrum for WIMP-nucleus elas-
tic scattering including the eects of both escape velocity and the earths
velocity is left as an exercise for the reader (for an almost complete so-
lution see Lewin and Smith
41
). The result for recoil energies such that
v
min
(E
R
) < v
esc
v
E
is
dR
dE
R
R
0
E
0
r
v
0
4v
E
erf
v
min
+v
E
v
0
erf
v
min
v
E
v
0
e
v
2
esc
/v
2
0
,
(22)
while for v
esc
v
E
< v
min
(E
R
) < v
esc
+ v
E
the terms inside curly braces
become
68,69
v
0
4v
E
erf
v
esc
v
0
erf
v
min
v
E
v
0
v
esc
+v
E
v
min
2v
E
e
v
2
esc
/v
2
0
.
This energy spectrum is reasonably approximated by another falling expo-
nential:
dR
dE
R
(E
R
) c
1
R
0
E
0
r
e
c2ER/E0r
, (23)
13
as shown in Figure 5. Here c
1
0.75 and c
2
0.56, although both depend
on WIMP and target masses, day of year, and the energy range of interest.
41
For example, the right panel of Fig. 5 shows the dependence of c
2
on the
WIMP mass M
for a Ge target.
Since c
1
/c
2
= 1.3, the Earths motion increases the interaction rate by
30% in addition to making the energy spectrum harder, as should be
expected from analogy to a cars driving through the rain resulting both in
more raindrops hitting the front windshield and in the drops hitting with
more force on average. Despite the wide use of this analogy, it must be
noted that the eect of Earth moving through the WIMP rain is not nearly
as pronounced as when one drives a car through rain, since the WIMPs are
moving with velocities comparable to the Earths.
The Earths velocity in the Galaxy of course is not constant over a year,
but varies due to the small velocity of the Earth around the Sun. As a
function of the day of the year t,
v
E
(t) 232 + 15 cos
2
t 152.5
365.25
km/s, (24)
with maximum occurring at t = 152.5 days, or June 2. From equation 22,
one can show that dR/dv
E
R/2v
E
, so the 6% annual modulation in the
Earth velocity from equation 24 causes about a 3% annual modulation in
the total WIMP interaction rate. Note that this result is true only when
considering all interactions, even those down to zero recoil energy. The
interaction rate above a (non-zero) experimental threshold energy can be
as big as 7%.
The motion of the Earth in the Galaxy towards the constellation Cygnus
makes the WIMP ux in the lab frame sharply peaked, resulting in a higher
rate of recoils from the direction of Cygnus. For the standard halo model
considered here (and neglecting the escape velocity),
70
dR
dRd cos

1
2
R
0
E
0
r
exp
v
E
cos v
min
v
0
, (25)
where is the recoil angle in the laboratory relative to the direction of
Cygnus. Since the Earth speed is comparable to the mean WIMP speed,
the rate in the forward direction is roughly an order of magnitude larger
than the rate in the backward direction.
70
14
t
r
n
Fig. 6. Assumed density of scattering centers for spin-independent interactions, as pro-
posed by Helm.
71
Density is constant within the nuclear radius rn then decreases to
zero over a skin thickness s (the related 10%90% thickness t is shown in this diagram).
The Fourier transform of this distribution yields the Woods-Saxon form factor used for
spin-independent scattering.
2.3. Nuclear Form Factors
Under the approximation of plane-wave (Born) scattering,
M(q) = f
n
A
d
3
x(x)e
i qx
. (26)
We may identify the momentum-dependent part of this interaction, the
form factor
F(q) =
d
3
x(x)e
i qx
, (27)
as the Fourier transform of the scattering site positions. For spin-
independent interactions, a good approximation
41
is the Woods-Saxon form
factor
F(q) =
3 [sin(qr
n
) qr
n
cos(qr
n
)]
(qr
n
)
3
e
(qs)
2
/2
, (28)
which is the Fourier transform of a solid sphere of radius r
n
with a skin
thickness s, as shown in Figure 6. In practice, Lewin and Smith
41
recom-
mend values of s = 0.9 fm and
r
2
n
=
1.23A
1/3
0.60 fm
2
+
7
3
(0.52 fm)
2
5s
2
. (29)
15
0 50 100 150 200
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
Recoil Energy (keV)
F
2
Fig. 7. Spin-independent form factors F
2
as a function of recoil energy for targets of 6
atomic masses A. From top to bottom on plot, materials are Ne (A = 20; F or Na are
similar), Si (A = 28), Ar (A = 40), Ge (A = 73), Xe (dashed, A = 131, I is similar), and
W (A = 183).
For spin-dependent interactions, the situation is more complicated. A
rst approximation starts with a thin shell of valence nucleons,
F(q) =
sin(qr
n
)
qr
n
, (30)
but must be extended with detailed nuclear-physics calculations.
41
In either case, F(q) < 1 when the de Broglie wavelength < r
n
and
the WIMP ceases to interact coherently with the entire nucleus. Since the
nuclear radius r
n
A
1/3
fm, this criterion may be rewritten
=

q
=
c
2M
A
c
2
E
R
=
197 MeV fm
2AE
R
(keV)
< A
1/3
. (31)
Hence, coherence is lost when
E
R
>
2 10
4
A
5/3
keV 100 keV. (32)
The strong dependence on A indicates that coherence is lost much earlier
for high-A targets, as shown in Fig. 7. This loss of coherence signicantly
reduces the advantage of using particularly heavy target materials; practi-
cally speaking use of materials heavier than Ge yield only modest increases
in overall rate, far short of the A
2
increase that would occur without the
16
0 20 40 60 80
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
Recoil Energy (keV)
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
e

(
a
r
b
.

u
.
)

W
Xe
Ge
Ar
Si
Ne
0 20 40 60
10
1
10
0
10
1
Threshold Energy (keV)
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
l

R
a
t
e

(
>
E
t
h
)

(
a
r
b
.

u
.
)

W
Xe
Ge
Ar
Si
Ne
Fig. 8. Spin-independent interaction rates (per detector exposure) as a function of
recoil energy for a WIMP on targets of 6 atomic masses A. From top to bottom on each
plot, materials are W (A = 183), Xe (dashed, A = 131, I is similar), Ge (A = 73),
Ar (A = 40), Si (A = 28), and Ne (A = 20, F or Na are similar). Left: Dierential
rate for a 60GeV/c
2
WIMP. High-A materials have a higher rate at low energies, since
the rate
2
A
A
2
, but loss of coherence greatly decreases the rate in these materials
at high energies. As A increases towards M, the mean energy and cuto energy both
increase due to kinematics, while loss of coherence osets the increase in the mean
energy. As A increases past M, the energy spectrum becomes softer and the cuto
energy decreases. Right: Integral rate above the energy threshold indicated for a 100
GeV/c
2
WIMP. Although energy thresholds vary from experiment to experiment, typical
energy thresholds for each material are indicated by + signs on each curve. With these
thresholds, the 100-GeV/c
2
WIMP would produce the highest signal rate in Xe, with
rates in W and Ge about 40% lower. I follows about the same curve as Xe, typically with
a 3 higher threshold and half the rate. Rates in Si are 9 lower than in Xe, rates in
Ar are 14 lower, and rates in Ne (or Na or F with this threshold) are 100 lower.
loss of coherence. Since the loss of coherence makes these high-A targets
intrinsically insensitive to high-energy depositions, it is particularly criti-
cal that experiments with high-A materials achieve low energy thresholds.
Figure 8 shows the relative rates for the same WIMP in several dierent
targets.
2.4. Implications of a detection
Because the spin-independent, proton-spin-dependent, and neutron-spin-
dependent form factors are dierent for a given target, it is possible in
principle to distinguish the type of interaction by the energy spectrum on a
single target isotope. Dierences are insignicant for low-mass WIMPs since
17
Fig. 9. Expected energy spectra for a 20-GeV/c
2
(solid), 60-GeV/c
2
(dashed), or 500-
GeV/c
2
(dotted) WIMP interacting on Ge via the neutron-spin-dependent (lowest), spin-
independent (middle), or proton-spin-dependent (top) interaction. For relatively massive
WIMPs for which the loss of coherence is signicant, a high-statistics detection could
identify the type of interaction via the spectral shape. Figure provided by J. Filippini.
all form factors are essentially unity. However, as shown in Fig. 9, dierences
for high-mass WIMPs may be signicant with a suciently high-statistics
detection (particularly if the WIMP mass is known independently).
Detections with several target materials would reveal the type of inter-
action more clearly. Comparing the interaction rate in dierent materials
would indicate the interaction type since the rates scale dierently in each
(Figure 8 shows the scaling for spin-independent interactions, while Table 1
shows the material-dependent scaling factors for spin-dependent interac-
tions). Furthermore, detection with dierent target materials provides a
useful conrmation of the detection, especially if a consistent WIMP mass
is determined from each.
Measurement of the WIMP recoil spectrum would provide constraints
on the WIMP mass, as can be seen from Fig. 4. However, since heavy
WIMPs all yield about the same energy spectrum, as shown by Eqn. 19,
detection of a heavy WIMP would provide only weak constraints on its
mass, other than that it must be relatively heavy. Table 2 lists how well
a WIMP mass may be determined by a detection for a spin-independent
interaction on Ge if the WIMP velocity distribution is known. The uncer-
tainties on the type of interaction and WIMP velocity distribution would
contribute additional uncertainty on an inferred WIMP mass. As shown
18
Table 2. Projected limits (at the 99% condence level)
on WIMP mass for a 60-GeV/c
2
WIMP on Ge based on
statistical uncertainties only.
72
Also listed is the minimum
mass M
min
for which there is no upper limit on the WIMP
mass.
Events Lower Upper
Detected Limit Limit M
min
10 30 GeV/c
2
none 50 GeV/c
2
100 45 GeV/c
2
101 GeV/c
2
100 GeV/c
2
1000 55 GeV/c
2
69 GeV/c
2
250 GeV/c
2
in Fig. 9, the dierent form factors may help a lower-mass WIMP with
one predominant interaction produce a spectrum more similar to that of a
higher-mass WIMP. For a Maxwellian distribution, the uncertainty on v
0
translates into uncertainty on M
even for low-mass WIMPs (see Fig. 10).

For small M
, since E
R
v
2
0
M
2
(from Eqn. 19),

M
=
v
0
v
0
, (33)
so systematic uncertainties on the WIMP mass due to halo uncertainties
are of order 20%. Ultimately, sucient measurement of the energy spec-
trum may allow better determination of v
0
(especially if the WIMP mass is
determined independently from collider data) and even identication of the
full WIMP velocity distribution, and hence the shape of the dark matter
halo. The right panel of Fig. 10 shows the dierences in the expected spec-
trum due to dierent halo models.
73
Although detectors that are sensitive
to the direction of the WIMP are in the prototype stage (see Section 3.5), a
high-statistics detection with a detector capable of the determining the re-
coil direction would allow the detailed determination of the WIMP velocity
distribution,
74,75
essentially ushering in an age of WIMP astronomy.
Finally, better measurements of WIMP mass from colliders may be
combined with information from direct detection to better constrain the
WIMP-nucleon cross section (and hence particle-physics parameters). For
many models, the LHC will constrain the WIMP mass to 10%. However,
it is dicult to measure WIMP properties well. If the LHC determines the
WIMP mass, direct detection can determine WIMP-nucleon cross section
much better than LHC alone.
17
19
Ge 270 km/s
170 km/s
Fig. 10. Left: Expected interaction rate on Ge as a function of recoil energy for dierent
WIMP masses M (as shown in the legend in units of GeV/c
2
), for most probable WIMP
velocity v
0
= 270 km/s (solid) and v
0
= 170 km/s (dash), which span the extremes of
possible values. For a large-statistics detection of a low-mass WIMP, the 30% uncertainty
on v
0
would result in a similar uncertainty on the WIMP mass, as seen by the similarity
in spectral shapes e.g. between the 10 GeV/c
2
WIMP with v
0
= 270 km/s and the
100 GeV/c
2
WIMP with v
0
= 170 km/s. Right: Expected interaction rate on Ge for
a 60-GeV/c
2
WIMP as a function of recoil energy for isothermal, triaxial, and Evans
halo models with various parameters. For an initial WIMP discovery, uncertainty in the
WIMP velocity distribution will increase uncertainty on the WIMP mass inferred from
the detection. Ultimately, these dierences in energy spectra may allow inference of the
correct halo model.
3. WIMP Direct Detection Experiments
Direct-detection experiments have already limited the expected WIMP-
nucleon interaction rate to fewer than 1 event per 10 kilograms of target
material per day (10 kg-day). With such a small event rate, it is a daunting
task to search for a WIMP interaction amongst the background interactions
from cosmic rays and natural radioactivity, which typically number in the
millions per kg-day (see Ref. 76 for a detailed review of the principle sources
of background for underground experiments).
Because it is not possible to distinguish a single neutron scatter from a
WIMP scatter if the neutron does not scatter in additional active material,
neutrons provide a particularly dangerous background for WIMP-search
experiments. Material with lots of hydrogen, such as polyethylene or clean
water, acts as shielding for neutrons by reducing the neutrons energies
enough that they cannot cause a recoil above threshold (due to simple
20
kinematics, more massive elements do not signicantly reduce the energy
of a a scattering neutron). Neutrons produced by (, n) reactions (from
uranium and thorium in rock walls, for example) may be eectively shielded
in this way since these neutrons start with relatively low energies and have
high interaction cross sections. For every 13 cm of polyethylene, this low-
energy neutron background is reduced by an order of magnitude,
77
with a
thickness of 40 cm or more needed for current experiments.
Such shielding is not eective for more energetic neutrons, such as those
produced by cosmic-ray muons. To reduce this critical background (and oth-
ers from cosmic rays), all experiments are located underground, with all but
prototype experiments located deep underground. Table 3 lists the depths
and locations of the principle underground laboratories for dark matter ex-
periments. Since denser rock provides a greater eective depth than less
dense rock, depths are standardly listed in terms of the thickness of water
(e.g. meters of water equivalent, or mwe) that would provide the same inte-
grated density as the actual overhead rock. For facilities under mountains,
usually the mean eective depth is quoted, which inaccurately suggests a
lower muon ux than in actuality, since shorter pathlengths dominate the
muon ux. As shown in Fig. 11, depth is eective for reducing backgrounds
due to the energetic neutrons produced by cosmic-ray muons. In addition,
most experiments are surrounded, or at least covered, by an active muon
veto to allow rejection of energetic neutrons if the muon progenitor passes
close to the experiment. Designs for most future experiments use large in-
strumented water tanks to provide both shielding for low-energy neutrons
and identication of fast neutrons or muons that traverse the shield.
Table 3. Locations, depths, and eective depths
77
of primary underground facilities
for dark matter experiments.
76
Both the 4850-foot (currently the Sanford Lab) and
planned 7400-foot DUSEL spaces are listed.
Depth Depth
Laboratory (m) (mwe) website
WIPP, AZ, U.S. 600 1600 www.wipp.energy.gov/science/index.htm
Soudan, MN, U.S. 710 2000 www.hep.umn.edu/soudan
Canfranc, Spain 860 2450 www.unizar.es/lfnae
Kamioka, Japan 1000 2050 www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Boulby, U.K. 1100 2800 hepwww.rl.ac.uk/ukdmc/pix/boulby.html
Gran Sasso, Italy 1400 3100 www.lngs.infn.it
Modane, France 1760 4200 www-lsm.in2p3.fr
Sudbury, Canada 2160 6000 www.sno.phy.queensu.ca
DUSEL, SD, U.S. 1500 4300 www.dusel.org
(planned) 2260 6200
21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10
10
10
8
10
6
Effective Depth (km.w.e.)
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d

F
l
u
x

(
c
m
2

s
1
)

W
I
P
P
S
o
u
d
a
n
K
a
m
i
o
k
a
B
o
u
l
b
y
G
r
a
n

S
a
s
s
o
M
o
d
a
n
e
D
U
S
E
L

4
8
5
0
S
N
O
L
A
B
D
U
S
E
L

7
4
0
0
Muons
Fast Neutrons
10
12
10
10
10
8
10
6
S
I

C
r
o
s
s
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

R
e
a
c
h

(
p
b
)
Fig. 11. Flux of muons (dashes) and muon-induced neutrons (solid) as functions of
depth underground, measured in terms of the equivalent thickness of water in km below
a at surface that is needed to provide equal shielding. Eective depths of primary un-
derground facilities for dark matter experiments are listed (Canfranc is similar to Soudan
or Kamioka). Although the neutron background resulting from a given fast neutron ux
is highly dependent on the experimental setup and materials, the curve of neutron ux
(still solid) referred to the right-hand axis shows the limit on sensitivity reach due to
neutron backgrounds for one possible experimental setup.
77
At depths below about 10
km w. e., the muon ux is 310
12
cm
2
s
1
, dominated by neutrino-induced muons.
76
Experiments take additional precautions against other sources of back-
grounds, which otherwise would cause 10
4
events keV
1
kg
1
day
1
. Low-
radioactivity copper, which is straightforward to produce, or lead with an
inner liner of ancient lead (for which radioactive isotopes present at its
smelting have decayed away) is used to reduce the background from pho-
tons, typically by 45 orders of magnitude. Any air near the detectors is
purged of radon. Figure 12 shows a typical shielding setup around an exper-
iment. Materials that surround or constitute the detector must be ultra-
low-radioactivity, requiring they be screened for possible contamination.
Residual radioactivity in the detectors or their shielding typically is the
dominant source of background in experiments, with radioactivity on de-
tector surfaces (typically from plateout of radon daughters) a particular
problem.
In addition to shielding backgrounds, experments reject events that
are more likely to be due to backgrounds such as photons, electrons, or
alpha-particles. For example, WIMPs interact so weakly that they never
interact more than once in a detector, allowing experiments to reject
multiple-scatter events. Most detectors allow rejection of some multiple-
22
Plastic
Scintillator
Polyethylene Lead
Detector
Volume
Ancient
Lead
Dilution
Refrigerator
Fig. 12. Sliced side view of a typical shielding setup (here for the CDMS experi-
ment
78
). Outermost scintillator paddles act as a veto against events due to muons.
A thick polyethylene shield moderates the ux of neutrons from (, n) reactions by 5
orders of magnitude. Lead (grey) reduces the photon backgrounds by 4 orders of mag-
nitude, with the inner ancient lead liner (dark grey) reducing the background from
electron bremsstrahlung from
210
Bi, a daughter of
210
Pb present in modern lead. In-
ner polyethylene reduces the neutron background from fast neutrons that penetrate
the outer polyethylene and interact in the lead. Additional polyethylene within the lead
shield would improve the neutron moderation, but at a signicant increase in the amount
and expense of the lead shielding. Materials that cannot easily be made radiopure (here
the dilution refrigerator used to cool the cryogenic detectors) must be shielded from the
detectors.
scatter events with negligible loss in eciency to WIMPs, often through
the use of arrays of detector modules, so that if two separate modules have
energy depositions, the event must be a multiple-scatter. For liquid nobles,
multiple scatter may result in pulses separated in time or energy deposited
in places suciently separated in space so as to allow identication by event
reconstruction. Similarly, WIMPs interact uniformly throughout a detector,
so it pays to cut interactions near detector surfaces, where more background
interactions occur. Most experiments use some form of event reconstruction
to form a ducial volume by rejecting events inferred to occur near the
detector surface. When comparing detector masses, it is most appropriate
to consider this ducial mass.
Most signicantly, WIMPs tend to interact with an atoms nucleus,
while the dominant radioactive backgrounds (everything except neutrons)
interact with electrons, so experiments that discriminate between interac-
23
tions causing an electron to recoil and those that cause a nuclear recoil can
reject virtually the entire radioactive background. There are three ways to
discriminate between electron recoils and nuclear recoils. Each is based on
the fact that, for E
R
10 keV, an electron recoils with v 0.3c, whereas a
nucleus recoils with v 710
4
c, depositing its energy much more densely
over a very short track. Threshold detectors such as COUPP
79
(described
in more detail in Section 3.1) require a dense energy deposition to trigger
and therefore are nearly immune to electron recoils, whose deposited en-
ergy is almost never dense enough to trigger. For other experiments, the
pulse timing is dierent for electron recoils than for nuclear recoils. Fi-
nally, depending on the material, recoil energy may be converted into light,
ionization, and/or phonons. Experiments that measure two of these forms
may discriminate against electron-recoil backgrounds because the relative
amount of energy in the two forms is dierent for nuclear recoils than for
electron recoils.
These dierent measures of recoil energy and the diering response of
electron and nuclear recoils may introduce an ambiguity in quoted energy.
To avoid this ambiguity, most (but not all) experimenters are explicit about
which signal (or combination of signals) is used to determine an events
energy. The unit keVee quanties a measured signal in terms of the energy
(in keV) of an electron recoil that would generate it, while keVr indicates
the energy of a nuclear recoil that would generate the signal observed.
The energy scale for keVee is generally easy to establish since photon
backgrounds (or calibration sources) typically produce mono-energetic fea-
tures at known energies, although sometimes extrapolations of the scale to
low energy are required. The nuclear-recoil energy scale is more dicult,
due to a lack of such features. In practice, two methods are used. Neu-
tron scattering experiments allow the nucleuss recoil energy to be inferred
from the incoming neutron energy and the neutrons measured angle of
scattering, while simultaneously measuring the signal size. Unfortunately,
multiple-scatter backgrounds are usually bad enough that signicant simu-
lations are needed to obtain accurate results, especially for the low energies
that can be measured only with forward scattering. Alternatively, compar-
ing simulation results to the observed shape of an energy spectrum from a
neutron source with a broad energy may yield the energy scale. Often, the
ratio of a signal in keVr to keVee is called the signals quenching factor,
QF E(keVr)/E(keVee). (34)
(although sometimes the inverse of this quantity is called the quenching
24
factor). If an electron recoil would produce a larger signal than a nuclear
recoil of the same energy (as is usually the case), the quenching factor of
the signal QF > 1.
There are large fundamental dierences in light, ionization, and phonon
signals. Light signals are the fastest, with ns timing possible, but only 10
photons are produced per keV. In order to take advantage of the excellent
discrimination potential of timing using light signals, ecient light collec-
tion is critical. Ionization is somewhat better, with 100 quanta per keV,
while a whopping 10,000 phonons are produced per keV. Experiments that
detect phonons therefore have fundamentally better energy resolution and
energy-based discrimination capabilities compared to other experiments.
Reduction of backgrounds is critical in order to maximize sensitivity
reach. If backgrounds are kept negligible, the search sensitivity of an ex-
periment is directly proportional to the target exposure (target mass M
exposure time t). If the expected background is non-negligble but can be
estimated with negligible uncertainty by some means, it may be statistically
subtracted (explicitly or implicitly), with the resulting Poisson errors caus-
ing the sensitivity improvement to be proportional to
MT.
80
In practice,
most dark matter experiments have been background-dominated, without
means to estimate the backgrounds accurately. In these cases, the experi-
ments are unable to take full advantage of their target exposure, as increas-
ing exposure would result in little or no sensitivity improvement due to the
systematic uncertainties in any background subtraction. The importance
of systematics also makes pursuing dierent techniques critical, since these
technologies tend to have dierent systematics, thus providing critical cross
checks for a detection claim.
The basic techniques include threshold detectors that nucleate if a su-
cient energy deposition occurs (see Section 3.1), ultrapure scintillators (see
Section 3.4), masses of liquid nobles view by light detectors, with or without
an electric eld to collect ionization (see Section 3.2), solid-state detectors
cooled to mK temperatures in order to detect phonons, as well as light or
ionization (see Section 3.3), gaseous detectors for measuring the direction
and energy density of each recoil (see Section 3.5), and others that do not
t into these categories. There are dozens of WIMP-search experiments in
progress or development worldwide. Table 4, based on the more extensive
but slightly dated table in Ref. 81, lists a selection of them. In the sections
that follow, I describe the various types of WIMP-search experiments, with
the aim of introducing how the technique works and describing its advan-
tages and challenges. I have not included discussion of many interesting re-
25
Table 4. Characteristics of selected dark matter experiments,
81
including ducial mass
M and whether scintillation light (), phonons (), ionization (q), or another form
of energy is detected, and whether the experiments primary mission is neutrinoless
double-beta decay ().
Readout T M Search
Experiment Location (, , q) (K) (kg) Target Dates
NAIAD Boulby 300 50 NaI 20012005
DAMA/NaI Gran Sasso 300 87 NaI 19952002
DAMA/LIBRA Gran Sasso 300 233 NaI 2003
ANAIS Canfranc 300 11 NaI 20002005
ANAIS Canfranc 300 100 NaI 2011
KIMS Yangyang 300 35 CsI 20062007
KIMS Yangyang 300 104 CsI 2008
CDMS II Soudan , q < 1 1 Si 20012008
3 Ge 20012008
SuperCDMS Soudan , q < 1 12 Ge 20102012
SuperCDMS SNOLAB , q < 1 120 Ge 20132016
GEODM DUSEL , q < 1 1200 Ge 2017
EDELWEISS I Modane , q < 1 1 Ge 20002004
EDELWEISS II Modane , q < 1 4 Ge 2005
CRESST II Gran Sasso , < 1 1 CaWO
4
2000
EURECA Modane , q < 1 50 Ge 20122017
, < 1 50 CaWO
4
20122017
SIMPLE Rustrel Threshold 300 0.2 Freon 1999
PICASSO Sudbury Threshold 300 2 Freon 2001
COUPP Fermilab Threshold 300 2 Freon 20042009
COUPP Fermilab Threshold 300 60 Freon 2010
TEXONO Kuo-Sheng q, 77 0.02 Ge 2006
CoGeNT Chicago q, 77 0.3 Ge 2005
Soudan q, 77 0.3 Ge 2008
MAJORANA Sanford q, 77 60 Ge 2011
ZEPLIN III Boulby , q 150 7 LXe 2004
LUX Sanford , q 150 100 LXe 2010
XMASS Kamioke , q 150 3 LXe 20022004
XMASS Kamioke , q 150 100 LXe 2010
XENON10 Gran Sasso , q 150 5 LXe 20052007
XENON100 Gran Sasso , q 150 50 LXe 2009
WArP Gran Sasso , q 86 3 LAr 20052007
WArP Gran Sasso , q 86 140 LAr 2010
ArDM CERN , q 86 850 LAr 2009
DEAP-1 SNOLAB 86 7 LAr 2008
MiniCLEAN SNOLAB 86 150 LAr 2012
DEAP-3600 SNOLAB 86 1000 LAr 2013
DRIFT-I Boulby Direction 300 0.17 CS
2
20022005
DRIFT-2 Boulby Direction 300 0.34 CS
2
2005
NEWAGE Kamioka Direction 300 0.01 CF
4
2008
MIMAC Saclay Direction 300 0.01 many 2006
DMTPC MIT Direction 300 0.01 CF
4
2007
26
sults that have been made public during the preparation of this manuscript.
For more detailed reviews of dark matter experiments, see Refs. 8185.
3.1. Threshold Detectors
As mentioned above, one promising technology uses a superheated liquid
(in bulk
79
or as droplets within a matrix
86,87
) as a threshold detector. By
tuning thermodynamic parameters (e.g. temperature and pressure), the
detector may be made insensitive to the low energy density deposited by
a minimum-ionizing electron recoil. Only a dense energy deposition, such
as from a nuclear recoil, will provide enough energy to cause nucleation
(smaller depositions result in sub-critical bubbles that are squashed to noth-
ing by their surface pressure). A drawback of these detectors is that they
provide limited energy information on events. The attraction of these de-
tectors is that they could allow inexpensive scaling to very large masses
with a broad range of materials and without need of cryogens or photon
shielding. Already, the ability of these experiments to use materials sen-
sitive to spin-dependent interactions on protons has allowed them to set
world-leading limits,
54,55,88
as shown in Fig. 2.
The primary background for these experiments other than neutrons
(which plague all experiments) is alpha decays from radioactive contam-
ination (primarily from radon daughters) in the detectors. The PICASSO
collaboration has recently shown that these alpha decays are rejectable.
89
Since a recoiling alpha particle is lighter and hence has a much longer stop-
ping distance than a recoiling nucleus, an alpha particle may produce more
than a single nucleation along its track. Although these individual nucle-
ations grow together quickly, the amplitude of the high-frequency signal,
detectable through microphones on the detector, allows discrimination from
the nuclear recoils of WIMPs. If the rejection proves to be strong enough,
it will dramatically increase the achievable sensitivity of experiments based
on the superheated liquid technique.
One of these experiments, COUPP,
79
uses a large volume of super-
heated liquid and hence is similar to the classic bubble chambers used in
high-energy experiments in the 1960s. A principle challenge is keeping the
detector stable, since any nucleation in the chamber requires recondensing
the liquid, with a signicant deadtime. The COUPP collaboration has met
the principle challenge of preventing nucleation due to micro-cracks in ves-
sel walls.
79
They are currently running a 60-kg chamber with higher-purity
materials and capability of rejecting alpha events, and have shown prelim-
inary results indicating an impressive reduction in backgrounds, including
27
electron recoil
nuclear recoil
atomic motion
excitation + ionization
Xe
*
Xe
+
+ e
-
+Xe
Xe2
+
+ e
-
Xe
**
+Xe
Xe2
*
+Xe
2Xe + h
scintillation light (175 nm)
ionization
electrons
escaping
electrons
recombination
S2 S1
Fig. 13. Diagram of the processes leading to primary scintillation (S1) light in a
liquid noble detector (here Xe), and (if the detector is dual-phase) to secondary (S2)
light proportional to the amount of ionization. Recoils dissipate energy as atomic motion,
excitation, and ionization. Both excitation and ionization result in excited dimers, Xe
2
,
in either a longer-lived triplet state or a shorter-lived singlet. Numerical values are for
Xe; see Table 5 for properties of Ar and Ne. Figure based on Ref. 91.
a signicant reduction in the rate of alphas from impurities in the quartz
of the vessel that otherwise would limit the livetime of a larger device.
90
3.2. Noble Liquid Detectors
Detectors using noble liquids (and/or gases) also show great promise for
WIMP detection and have the advantage of relatively easy scaling to large
masses. Figure 13 shows the basic physics behind these detectors. A recoil in
liquid Xe, for example, induces both ionization and excitation of Xe atoms
(in addition to wasting some energy increasing atomic motion). Both exci-
tation and ionization lead to production of either a singlet or triplet state
of an excited dimer (Xe
2
). De-excitation of either state produces emission
of a 175-nm photon that is not absorbed by the noble liquid. The triplet
state has a longer lifetime than the singlet state (27 ns vs. 3 ns for Xe). The
dense energy depositions from nuclear recoils result in fewer triplet decays
and faster recombination, so nuclear recoils have a faster pulse shape than
electron recoils. As shown in Table 5, the eect is particularly pronounced
in Ar and Ne, leading to extremely good discrimination in Ar and Ne based
28
Table 5. Properties of noble liquid detectors.
92,93
Property (unit) Xe Ar Ne
Atomic Number 54 18 10
Mean relative atomic mass 131.3 40.0 20.2
Boiling Point T
b
(K) 165.0 87.3 27.1
Melting Point Tm (K) 161.4 83.8 24.6
Liquid density at T
b
(g cm
3
) 2.94 1.40 1.21
Volume fraction in Earths atmosphere (ppm) 0.09 9340 18.2
Cost/kg
a
$1000 $2 $90
Scintillation light wavelength (nm) 175 128 78
Triplet lifetime (ns) 27 1600 15000
Singlet lifetime (ns) 3 7 <18
Electron mobility (cm
2
V
1
s
1
) 2200 400 low
Scintillation yield (photons/keV) 42 40 30
Note:
a
price subject to change; the author does not guarantee any price
listed.
on timing alone. Additional discrimination is possible in Xe or Ar based
on the relative amount of primary scintillation versus ionization (low elec-
tron mobility makes measuring ionization in Ne impractical). For a given
energy deposition, nuclear recoils produce less ionization than electron re-
coils, and much of the ionization of nuclear recoils is quenched through
recombination.
Experiments with noble liquids must overcome signicant challenges.
Since there are relatively few light quanta (typically 510 pe/keV collected),
maintaining discrimination to low energies is dicult. Stringent purity lev-
els ( 10
9
impurities) must be achieved in order to prevent absorption of
the scintillation light or attachment of drifting electrons. The experiments
must overcome radioactive backgrounds such as
85
Kr in Xe or especially
39
Ar in liquid Ar (which produces 1 decay per second per kg of natural
Ar).
There are two basic types of noble detectors: single-phase (usually liq-
uid), which detect only the primary (S
1
) light signal, and dual-phase
time-projection chambers, which employ a large electric eld to drift ion-
ization electrons upwards out of the liquid and into a region where the
noble is in its gas phase (see Fig. 14). There, the electrons produce a
large secondary (S
2
) light signal by electroluminescence that is propor-
tional to the amount of ionization. The ratio of this secondary light to
the primary scintillation (S
2
/S
1
) provides additional discrimination with
typical background leakage 10
2
10
3
at 50% acceptance. With Xe, dual-
phase detectors are the only way to get appreciable discrimination against
29
PMTs
PMTs
PMTs
Sensitive
Volume
Fig. 14. Left: Sketch of a typical modern single-phase detector geometry. A spherical
volume of noble liquid is surrounded by an array of close-packed photomultiplier tubes
(PMTs) to maximize light collection and simplify position reconstruction. A neck leads
up from the top of the detector to allow insertion of calibration sources. Right: Sketch of
a typical dual-phase detector geometry. Noble gas lies above the liquid with transition
from liquid to gas occurring at the grid. PMTs on top or bottom of the cylinder allow
mm reconstruction accuracy in the x-y plane of the detector. Interaction in the sensitive
volume between the cathode and the grid produces primary scintillation (S
1
) light and
ionization electrons. These electrons drift upwards in the strong electric eld produced
by the anode and cathode, producing secondary (S
2
) light proportional to the amount
of ionization, due to electroluminescence in the gas. As depicted, the S
2
signal is much
larger than the S
1
signal. The drift time of the electrons causes a delay between the S
1
and S
2
signals that allows mm reconstruction of the position in the vertical axis of the
detector. Interactions occurring in liquid below the cathode produce S
1
signals but no
S
2
signal, since the direction of the electric eld drifts electrons from these interactions
to the bottom of the detector.
electron-recoil backgrounds since timing discrimination is weak. However,
the primary advantage of the dual-phase set-up is that drifting the electrons
yields mm-accurate position information on the interaction (compared to
cm-accurate for single-phase detectors), providing much better rejection of
events due to contaminants external to the detector or on its walls. There
are costs to these advantages. Drifting electrons is very slow ( 50 s)
compared to collecting scintillation light. Single-phase detectors may stand
a higher event rate, important for calibration and increasingly important
as detectors become larger. Since they dont need an electric eld, single-
phase experiments can achieve better light collection, allowing lower energy
thresholds and/or better pulse-shape discrimination. Their simple design
allows easiest scaling to very large masses. In contrast, noble liquid exper-
30
LLWI 2008
Chris Jillings
Leakage Probability
Fig. 15. Results of calibration of the DEAP-1 detector with a
22
Na gamma-ray source at
Queens University, demonstrating > 10
7
:1 rejection of electron recoils based on their low
fraction of prompt light Fprompt. Nuclear recoils have median Fprompt = 0.82 (dashed
vertical line labeled 50% acceptance). Plotted is the probability P
leak
that an electron
recoil would have a fraction of prompt light greater than Fprompt. None of the 1.5310
7
electron-recoil events (circles with error bars indicating uncertainties due to counting
statistics) have Fprompt > 0.64, safely below the value needed to accept 90% of WIMPs
(dashed vertical line labeled 90% acceptance). Data show agreement with predictions
from simulations when a statistical model of photoelectron noise is included (shaded
swath); the model without photoelectron noise is also shown (dotted curve). The full
model predicts 10
9
:1 rejection of electron recoils at 90% acceptance of WIMPs. Cal-
ibration is underway deep underground at SNOLAB to measure rejection beyond that
demonstrable at Queens due to expected neutron backgrounds (solid curve). Figure
courtesy of C. Jillings.
iments that measure ionization are inherently not as scalable since large
detectors would require extremely high voltages and high purity for e-
cient collection of electrons; Ar detectors that measure ionization would be
limited by the high event pile-up due to the relatively slow electron drift
speed.
Three single-phase experiments are under construction and should take
data in 2010 or 2011. XMASS,
94
which uses Xe, will take advantage of self-
shielding to create a low-background 100-kg ducial volume within 800 kg
of instrumented Xe. The collaboration appears to be able to achieve suf-
cient reduction of backgrounds in the bulk Xe, most notably reduction
of
85
Kr to 3 ppt by distillation.
95
Experiments of the DEAP/CLEAN col-
laboration take advantage of the large timing dierence between nuclear
31
recoils and electron recoils in argon or neon. As shown in Figure 15, the
DEAP-1 experiment has already demonstrated better than 10
7
:1 rejection
of backgrounds,
96
and an analytic model predicts better than billion-to-
one rejection with 90% eciency for WIMPs. Construction of the 100-kg
ducial-mass MiniClean detector
97
and the 1000-kg ducial-mass DEAP-
3600 detector
98
are both in progress and should start taking data in 2011
2013.
As shown in Figure 1, the XENON-10 experiment
99
has the most sensi-
tive current results among noble-liquid experiments,
47
including the most
stringent spin-independent limits of all experiments for WIMP masses be-
low 40 GeV/c
2
, and, as shown in Fig. 2, the most stringent neutron-spin-
dependent limits of all experiments.
52
These results are from a blind
analysis, in which data-selection cuts including energy range were all set
before looking at the parameters of candidate WIMP events in the data.
Such blind analyses are critical for dark matter searches when data-selection
cuts are made in a large dimensional space, otherwise potentially allowing
bias to lead to ne-tuned cuts that preferentially select or omit the candi-
date events with little eect on the reported expected background leakage
or WIMP eciency. This analysis yields about 50% eciency for nuclear
recoils for 58.6 days exposure of a detector of 5.4 kg ducial mass. The
expected background based on the expected Gaussian tails of the electron-
recoil log(S
2
/S
1
) distribution was 7.0
+2.1
1.0
events. An additional, unesti-
mated background resulted from multiple-scatter events where one scatter
occurs in the sensitive volume and the other in the liquid below the cathode
(see Fig. 14). Since the latter interaction produces S
1
light but no S
2
light,
these events have reduced log(S
2
/S
1
) values. In the blindly chosen energy
region, 212 keVee (corresponding to 4.527 keV
R
for the assumed nuclear
quenching factor, but to a higher energy range for more recent measure-
ments
91,100
), 10 presumed background events passed cuts (see Fig. 16), with
studies after unblinding suggesting that most were multiple-scatter events
with one interaction below the cathode.
A similar experiment, ZEPLIN-III,
101
obtained very similar results
48,53
with a dierent geometry. While XENON-10 was relatively long and thin,
with a 20 cm diameter and a 15 cm maximum drift length resulting in a
drift eld of 0.7 kVcm
1
, ZEPLIN-III is short and squat, with a diam-
eter of 38.6 cm and a maximum drift length of 3.5 cm, allowing a larger
drift eld of 3.9 kVcm
1
and better resulting S
2
/S
1
discrimination.
48,101
Their analysis was not blind, instead including strong eorts to remove the
multiple-scattering events that limited XENON-10. A dierence in photo-
32
Primary Scintillation Energy (keVee)
l
o
g
(

C
o
r
r
e
c
t
e
d

I
o
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

Y
i
e
l
d

)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Primary Scintillation Energy (keVee)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
L
o
g
1
0
(
S
2
/
S
1
)
Fig. 16. Plots of events observed with dual-phase Xe detectors. Left: Corrected ion-
ization yield (which is log(S
2
/S
1
) rescaled so that photons lie at log(S
2
/S
1
)corr = 2.5)
and primary scintillation S
1
energy for XENON-10 events passing blind data-selection
cuts. 10 WIMP candidate events (circled) lie between 212 keVee with ionization yield
between the median and 3 values for nuclear recoils (horizontal lines as function of S
1
bin), consistent with backgrounds from electron-recoils including multiple-scatter events.
Plot from Ref. 47. Right: Ionization yield log(S
2
/S
1
) and primary scintillation S
1
en-
ergy for ZEPLIN-III events passing data-selection cuts. Curves depicting the median
(central, red curve) and 1 (outer, blue curves) ionization yield for nuclear recoils are
shown. 7 WIMP candidate events (large lled circles) lie between 216 keVee with ion-
ization yield between the median and 2 values expected for nuclear recoils. All are
near the top edge of the nuclear-recoil candidate region, consistent with expectations
from background. Plot from Ref. 48.
tube performance between low-rate WIMP-search running and high-rate
calibrations made estimation of expected backgrounds dicult, but the 7
observed events all appeared near the edge of the S
2
/S
1
cut position and
so appeared consistent with background, as shown in Fig. 16. Limits for
XENON-10 are signicantly better at low WIMP masses than those for
ZEPLIN-III because XENON-10 observed no events between 27 keVee,
and ZEPLIN-III assumed a much more conservative scintillation eciency
for nuclear recoils in Xe.
Two follow-up experiments (50-kg ducial-mass XENON-100
102
and
100-kg LUX
103
) should have science results in 2010 or 2011, although con-
struction of LUX has been greatly delayed due to the need to drain the
ooded Sanford (future DUSEL) site. If backgrounds are well below the
rate seen in XENON-10, sensitivity 10
9
pb may be achieved. Prototypes
for dual-phase Ar detectors WArP
49
and ArDM
104
have also been con-
structed. Use of argon with low
39
Ar content
105
would allow operation of
33
massive detectors without event pile-up. Running the 3.2 kg ducial WArP
prototype resulted in no candidate events above 42 keV in a 96.5 kg day
exposure.
49
The WArP collaboration is building a 140-kg experiment that
could have results in 2010 or 2011. The ArDM collaboration is constructing
a 1-ton detector at CERN and will consider a deep underground opera-
tion after its successful commissioning.
106
Relatively poor light collection
appears likely to limit the detector to a 30 keV energy threshold without
reach beyond that of current experiments. Plans exist for rapid increases
in mass to ton or multi-ton liquid noble detectors.
107110
3.3. Cryogenic Detectors
Ultrapure Ge semiconductor detectors operated at the temperature of liq-
uid nitrogen, 77 K, were used for the rst searches for dark matter particles
in the 1980s.
111,112
Because these detectors measured only the ionization
of energy depositions, they had no discrimination between electron-recoil
backgrounds and nuclear recoils. Although cryogenic detectors with strong
background discrimination are now used more widely, ionization-only detec-
tors with improved designs are operated today because of the very low en-
ergy thresholds they may achieve. The TEXONO collaboration has achieved
an energy threshold of 220 eVee in four 5 g detectors,
113
while the CoGeNT
collaboration achieved nearly as low a threshold for a run of 8.4 kg days
exposure.
114
The key advantage of most cryogenic detectors is the ability to measure
the energy deposited as phonons, vibrations of the crystal lattice. The ini-
tial phonons produced are not at equilibrium. Some detectors collect these
athermal phonons, which contain information on the location and type
of recoil that occurred. On timescales of ms, essentially all other forms
of energy depositions are converted to heat and the phonons thermalize,
resulting in a temperature increase of the detector T = E/C 1 K,
where E is the energy deposited and C is the detectors heat capacity.
Detectors insensitive to athermal phonons measure this temperature in-
crease with sensitive thermistors, such as neutron-transmutation-doped Ge
or transition-edge sensors (see e.g. Ref. 115).
The EDELWEISS experiment uses thermistors attached to Ge crystals
at cryogenic temperatures (20 mK) to measure phonons, in addition to mea-
suring ionization using a small applied electric eld. Backgrounds have been
dominated by low-energy electrons interacting near the surfaces of the de-
tectors
116,117
because such interactions result in incomplete collection of the
ionization charges, mimicking nuclear recoils. The problem occurs because
34
b a b a b a b a b a b a
d c d c d c d c d c d c
1
0
-1
B
u
l
k

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

V
Transition-edge
sensor
light absorber
CaWO
4
target
Transition-edge
sensor
Reflective and
scintillating housing
Fig. 17. Sketches of the EDELWEISS interdigitated and CRESST cryogenic detectors.
Left: Side view of a cylindrical interdigitated detector. Both top and bottom sides have
two sets of electrodes, with each commonly labeled electrode (a,b, c, or d) connected
in parallel. The voltage biases chosen (e.g. Va = 2 V, V
b
= 1 V, Vc = 2 V, V
d
=
1 V) produce an axial eld in the bulk of the detector, perpendicular to the depicted
equipotential lines (with voltages labeled by the vertical axis), while the eld close to
the surface links two adjacent electrodes and is therefore approximately parallel to the
surface. A bulk event (leftmost in gure) is thus identied by the collection of electrons
and holes on the ducial electrodes a and c. An event near enough to the surface
for charge collection to be incomplete (middle or rightmost in gure) would result in
charge collection in one of the two veto electrodes b or d, allowing its rejection. Figure
based on Refs. 119,120. Right: Sketch of CRESST phonon and scintillation detector.
Phonons produced in the CaWO
4
target are detected by the attached transition-edge
sensor, which is connected by a thermal impedance to a constant-temperature cryostat,
as in other phonon detectors. Light emitted by the CaWO
4
target is detected by an
adjacent silicon-on-sapphire detector, also with an attached TES connected by a thermal
impedance to the cryostat. Figure from Ref. 121.
the electrons and holes generated by an interaction are suciently ener-
getic to diuse against the applied electric eld into the nearby electrode,
causing a fraction of the event ionization to be lost if the interaction is
near the surface.
118
The new EDELWEISS interdigitated detectors
120
promise to provide
excellent discrimination against this dominant background. As shown in
Fig. 17, each side of the detector is interleaved with oppositely charged
electrodes. Events in the bulk of the detector result in the collection of
electrons and holes only on the ducial electrodes, whereas events near
the surface result in some charge collection in the veto electrodes. Overall,
calibration indicates rejection of surface events has only 10
5
ineciency,
sucient for 80 kg years exposure at achieved backgrounds. Recent run-
35
ning of an array of ten 400 g detectors for an eective exposure of 144 kg d
resulted in one nuclear-recoil candidate above 20 keV, leading to the com-
petitive limits shown in Fig. 1.
45
Continued running through Spring 2010
is planned, at which point additional detectors with larger ducial masses
will be commissioned and run.
The CRESST experiment also uses cryogenic detectors, but measures
phonons and scintillation light, which provides as good rejection of surface
events as it does rejection of photons in the bulk since light production is not
reduced for events near the crystal surface. The main CRESST detectors
are scintillating (300 g) CaWO
4
crystals, with the W providing the heavi-
est nucleus of any dark matter search. As shown in Fig. 17, a transition-
edge sensor deposited on the detector surface measures the phonon energy.
Adjacent to each crystal is a small (2 g) silicon-on-sapphire light detec-
tor equipped with another transition-edge sensor. The energy resolution of
the phonon measurement is excellent, better than 1 keV over the full en-
ergy spectrum.
122
The energy resolution of the light measurement is worse,
10 keVee, due to the small fraction of energy converted to light. Nuclear
recoils produce far less light than electron recoils, especially for interactions
with the heavy W nuclei (QF 40). This dierence provides excellent dis-
crimination between electron recoils and nuclear recoils, but also means
that only high-energy WIMP events would produce any detectable light at
all, resulting either in a high energy threshold, or in potential susceptibility
that something causing phonons but no light (e.g. crystal relaxation) may
mimic a WIMP signal.
Following major upgrades to the experiments shielding, detector sup-
port, and electronics, the CRESST collaboration ran detectors in 2007 in a
commissioning phase for CRESST-II, yielding a total exposure of 30.6 kg-
days of W exposure from two detector modules.
121
Three events consistent
with W recoils were found in the energy region 1040 keV, with the high
end of the energy range determined by the cut-o in the WIMP spectrum
due to the form factor for W (see Fig. 7). As shown in Fig. 1, resulting
limits for this small exposure are only about 20 less constraining than
the worlds best. The cause of these events, and of additional events with
energies > 40 keV, is unknown and under investigation.
For the longer timescale, the EDELWEISS and CRESST collaborations
and others have formed a new collaboration, EURECA,
123
dedicated to a
cryogenic experiment at or near a ton of detector mass. Plans are for a
100-kg experiment in 2012 and a ton scale experiment in 2018.
The CDMS II experiment uses cryogenic Ge or Si ionization-and-phonon
36
quasiparticle
trap
Al Collector W
Transition-Edge
Sensor
Si or Ge
quasiparticle
diffusion
phonons
Fig. 18. Sketch of a 10-m-long CDMS athermal phonon sensor on the surface of a
much larger Ge or Si target. Phonons produced in the Ge or Si target break Cooper
pairs in the superconducting Al, producing quasiparticles, which diuse into the overlap
region, becoming trapped in the W transition-edge sensor.
detectors that discriminate against the otherwise dominant surface electron
recoils by collecting phonons before they thermalize.
78
Each quadrant of the
detectors top surface includes thousands of phonon sensors connected in
parallel. As shown in Fig. 18, athermal phonons produced by the interac-
tion propagate to the detector surface, where most of them are absorbed
in superconducting aluminum pads. Quasiparticles generated in the alu-
minum by the phonons breaking Cooper pairs diuse in 10 s through the
aluminum to a tungsten transition-edge sensor. The aluminum ns allow a
large phonon collection area while keeping the transition-edge sensors small,
so that even a small amount of energy produces a large temperature change.
Each tungsten sensor is kept in the middle of its sharp superconducting-
to-normal transition, so a small increase in temperature greatly increases
its resistance. As a result these detectors have excellent energy resolution.
Comparison of phonon-pulse arrival times in the four independent chan-
nels allows localization of the interaction position in the xy-plane of the
detector.
The ionization yield allows near-perfect separation of nuclear recoils
from bulk electron recoils, and the shape, timing, and energy partition of
the phonon pulses allow rejection of events occurring near the detector
surfaces. This rejection works because the athermal phonons from electron
recoils are faster than those from nuclear recoils, particularly if the electron
recoils occur near a detector surface. Accepting only events with both slow
phonon pulses and low ionization yield rejects over 99.5% of the surface
events while keeping over half of the nuclear-recoil events in an analysis
tuned to maximize the discovery potential of the search.
37
bulk electron
recoils
All (10-100 keV)
WIMP search data
Fig. 19. Normalized ionization yield (number of standard deviations from the mean
nuclear-recoil yield) versus normalized timing parameter (timing relative to acceptance
region) for WIMP-search events (+) and neutron calibration events (grey dots) from the
nal exposure of the CDMS II experiment. Only events between 10100 keV, consistent
with all signal criteria (excluding yield and timing) are shown. Two WIMP candidate
events lie within the solid box indicating the signal region. Figure courtesy Zeesh Ahmed.
Data taken with 4 kg of Ge detectors in 20072008 resulted in a total
exposure to WIMPs of 612 kg-days. An analysis in which data-selection cuts
were set blind, based on events from calibration sources or other events
that could not be from WIMPs, resulted in an expected background of
0.8 0.1(stat)0.2(syst) misclassied surface electron recoils and 0.1
events from neutrons. Two WIMP candidates, at recoil energies of 12.3 keV
and 15.5 keV, were observed (see Fig. 19). Because the probability to have
observed two or more background events in this exposure is 23%, these
results are not signicant evidence for WIMP interactions.
44
Combined
with the results of previous exposures, resulting spin-independent limits are
the worlds most constraining for WIMP masses 40 GeV/c
2
, as shown in
Fig. 1.
38
A follow-up experiment, SuperCDMS,
124,125
is being commissioned us-
ing the same infrastructure but improved, thicker (inch-thick instead of cm-
thick) detectors with reduced exposure to radon daughters, and hence lower
surface backgrounds. The larger detectors result in 4 the total mass in
Ge, with sensitivity reach to 4 10
9
pb, at which point the neutron back-
grounds of the current setup at Soudan likely would begin to dominate. An
experiment with 100 kg at a deeper site, SNOLAB, is planned. Research and
development on the manufacturability of the 1.5 ton GEODM project,
126
is
in progress. It may be possible to make detectors 20 larger than the CDMS
detectors by exploiting inexpensive, dislocation-free Ge crystals, which are
unusable when run at liquid nitrogen temperatures but appear to work at
50 mK. Multiplexing would simplify the readout electronics and reduce the
heatload on the cryogenic systems.
3.4. DAMA
The only claimed detection of WIMPs is from the DAMA experi-
ments.
127131
DAMA does not distinguish between WIMP signal and back-
ground on an event-by-event basis. Instead, the presence of WIMPs may
be inferred from the annual modulation in the rate of the lowest-energy
single-scatter interactions, assuming that the backgrounds do not modu-
late signicantly. The DAMA/NaI apparatus,
128
consisting of 87.3 kg of NaI
scintillator crystals, was run from 19962002. The current, DAMA/LIBRA
apparatus
130
consists of an array of 25 NaI scintillator crystals, each 9.7 kg.
One is not operational, resulting in a total target mass of 232.8 kg. Each
crystal is viewed by 2 phototubes through suprasil-B lightguides, with ex-
cellent achieved light collection (5.57.5 photoelectrons/keVee). Extreme
eorts have been taken to avoid contamination, including etching of parts
followed by installation within a high-purity nitrogen atmosphere using
breathing apparatus. Photon and neutron shielding is fairly standard, al-
though it may be notable that the detectors are separated by a fair mass
of copper, and there is no surrounding scintillator veto.
As shown in Fig. 20, the annual modulation in DAMAs event rate is
compelling. The combined 0.82 ton-years of exposure result in a best-t
amplitude A = 0.0131 0.0016 keVee
1
kg
1
day
1
, period T = 0.998
0.003 years, and phase t
0
= 144 8 days (consistent with t
0
= 152.5 days as
expected for a standard halo), with a signicance of 8.2. As expected for
standard WIMP elastic scattering discussed in Section 2, the modulation
amplitude (see Fig. 21) is signicant only at low energies ( 5 keVee). The
shape of the energy spectrum of the modulation is not well constrained at
39
2-6 keV
Time (day)
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

(
c
p
d
/
k
g
/
k
e
V
)
DAMA/NaI (0.29 tonyr)
(target mass = 87.3 kg)
DAMA/LIBRA (0.53 tonyr)
(target mass = 232.8 kg)
Fig. 20. Sum of residuals of the single-hit scintillation events in the 26 keVee energy in-
terval, after subtracting time-averaged rates in each energy bin in each detector, as a func-
tion of days since January 1, 1996, for the DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA experiments.
The experimental errors are vertical bars, and the associated time bin widths are horizon-
tal bars. The superimposed curve represents the cosinusoidal function Acos (tt
0
) with
modulation amplitude A = (0.01290.0016) keVee
1
kg
1
day
1
obtained by best t over
the whole data while constraining the period T = 2/ = 1 yr and phase t
0
= 152.5 day
(June 2
nd
). The dashed vertical lines correspond to the maximum of the signal (June
2
nd
), while the dotted vertical lines correspond to the minimum. Figure from Ref. 131.
Energy (keV)
S
m

(
c
p
d
/
k
g
/
k
e
V
)
-0.05
-0.025
0
0.025
0.05
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Fig. 21. Energy distribution of the binned modulation amplitude Sm for the total
exposure of DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA. A clear modulation is present in the lowest
energy region, while Sm values compatible with zero are present just above. Figure from
Ref. 131.
low energies; since the lowest-energy bin has a somewhat lower rate than the
next higher bins, a spectrum that is monotonically falling with increasing
energy, or one that rises and then dips (such as a monoenergetic line near
3 keVee) each provides an adequate t to the data.
131
Finally, no modulation
is seen in the rate of low-energy multiple-scatter events, providing evidence
that the signal is not a simple modulation of the background.
If interpreted as a standard WIMP interaction on iodine, the results
40
WIMP Mass (GeV/c
2
)
S
I

W
I
M
P
n
u
c
l
e
o
n

C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
p
b
)
10
1
10
2
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
WIMP Mass (GeV/c
2
)
S
D

W
I
M
P
p
r
o
t
o
n

C
r
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
p
b
)
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
Fig. 22. Comparison of DAMA (3) allowed regions as interpreted in Ref. 69 to pub-
lished (90% C.L.) upper limits on the spin-independent (left) and proton-spin-dependent
(right) WIMP-nucleon cross section as functions of WIMP mass under the standard as-
sumptions
41
about the WIMP distribution in the Galaxy described in Section 2. For
DAMA, interactions of WIMPs with mass 25 GeV/c
2
are dominated by interactions
on I, while those 25 GeV/c
2
are dominated by interactions on Na. Upper limits of
CDMS
44
(solid), XENON-10
47
(dashes), and KIMS
56
(circles) are clearly incompati-
ble with spin-independent interactions on I, while limits from PICASSO
54
(6-pointed
stars), COUPP
55
(5-pointed stars), and KIMS (circles) are clearly incompatible with
spin-dependent interactions on I. Parts of the regions including the eects of ion chan-
neling as presented in Ref. 132 (light shade) are allowed at low masses. Almost the
entire region assuming insignicant channeling (dark shade) for both spin-independent
and spin-dependent interactions, even at low masses, is excluded by combinations of
limits of CDMS on Si
133
(dash-dots), CoGeNT
114
(dots), and PICASSO.
are clearly inconsistent with limits from other experiments, as shown
in Fig. 22 for spin-independent and proton-spin-dependent interactions
(neutron-spin-dependent interactions are excluded even more strongly, since
Na and I isotopes are odd-p). The results are in conict with other exper-
iments if they are due to standard low-mass WIMP scattering on sodium
instead of iodine, whether the dominant interaction is spin-independent
or spin-dependent, if the standard halo model is correct. Since alternate
halo models may produce a larger modulation for the same WIMP rate,
134
a non-standard halo may improve consistency between DAMA and other
experiments.
Figure 22 also shows DAMA allowed regions if ion channeling is signif-
icant in NaI, as presented in Ref. 132. Ion channeling is an eect observed
experimentally for nuclei sent into lattice from outside. If the nucleus trav-
41
els down the channel between lattice sites, it transfers more of its energy to
electrons rather than to other nuclei, producing much more light than usual.
If WIMP-induced recoiling nuclei are channeled, the sensitivity of DAMA
would be increased especially for low-mass WIMPS since the channeling
would allow a low-energy recoil to produce enough light to be detectable.
However, channeling has not been observed, nor is it expected, for nuclei
that start on a lattice site, as would be the case for nuclei recoiling from
a WIMP interaction. In a perfect lattice, no nucleus would be channeled
by the rule of reversibility. Accounting for thermal vibrations, Bozorgnia,
Gelmini, and Gondolo nd channelings eect on the DAMA energy spec-
trum is < 1%.
135
Many non-standard interactions have been proposed (e.g.
136139
) that
may explain the DAMA signal. Since these are described in Neil Weiners
contribution to these proceedings,
8
they will not be discussed here. Instead,
it is worthwhile considering in detail whether the annual modulation sig-
nal could be caused by something other than dark matter, in order to help
evaluate how seriously alternate WIMP models should be considered. Could
some background be causing the annual modulation? Such a background
would have to fulll the annual modulation characteristics of a WIMP. Its
rate would have to vary cosinusoidally over the course of the year, with
period T = 1 year and phase t
0
152.5 days. The modulation should ap-
pear only in the lowest-energy, single-detector hits, and should produce a
consistent amplitude, A 7%, between the NaI/LIBRA experiments and
between dierent detectors in the experiments.
Although these requirements are extensive, they are not as strenuous at
they might at rst seem. The date of expected maximum signal, June 2,
corresponds roughly (but not exactly) to summer, and there are of course
many systematic dierences between summer and winter. The lowest-energy
events are the very ones most likely to be aected by a systematic eect,
and the requirement that the multiple-scatter events not show modulation
is not a very strong test, since there are not many multiple-scatter events.
The requirement that the amplitude A 7% is barely restrictive at all.
Because the overall, unmodulated background was designed to be lower
in DAMA/LIBRA than in DAMA/NaI, the consistency check between the
two setups is interesting. As shown in Fig. 23, the continuum background
4 keVee is 2 lower in the LIBRA setup. Below about 3.5 keVee, the
backgrounds are surprisingly similar, with a slightly higher (statistically
signicant) rate in DAMA/LIBRA than in DAMA/NaI in the range 2
2.5 keVee. Any explanation of the modulation in terms of backgrounds
42
Energy (keVee)
R
a
t
e

(
d
-
1

k
g
-
1

k
e
V
e
e
-
1
)
Fig. 23. Overall single-hit rate in the DAMA/NaI (higher curve at high energies) and
DAMA/LIBRA (lower curve at high energies) experiments as a function of the electron-
equivalent energy. Between 23 keVee the spectra cross. The small peak (0.7 perkgd
spread across 1.5 keVee) evident in the DAMA/LIBRA spectrum near 3 keVee is pre-
sumably due to
40
K. Figure based on those in Refs. 129,131.
would need to be consistent with this behavior of the overall rate.
As can be seen by eye from Fig. 20, the amplitude of the annual mod-
ulation is somewhat smaller for the DAMA/LIBRA setup than for the
DAMA/NaI setup (although the larger uncertainties on the DAMA/NaI
data make the dierence appear larger than it is). Table 6, from Ref. 130,
compares the ts to the annual modulation with the function Acos (tt
0
)
for the two individual set-ups and together. The worst consistency is for
the full 26 keVee region. DAMA/NaI shows a modulation amplitude nearly
twice as large as that for DAMA/LIBRA, A = 0.0200 0.0032 in compari-
son to A = 0.0107 0.0019. This dierence is 0.0093 0.0037, about 2.5,
which happens by chance 1.2% of the time. While such a probability is
certainly not so low as to indicate that the two experiments are incon-
sistent, it does not provide especially strong constraints on the possibility
that some background may be causing the modulation. In particular, the
fact that the NaI modulation is larger primarily in the same region of the
energy spectrum (> 5 keVee, and to a lesser extent > 4 keVee) for which
its background is larger makes it possible that the reduction in background
between DAMA/NaI and DAMA/LIBRA is what has caused the reduction
in modulation amplitude.
The DAMA collaboration have taken strong steps to assure and to check
that no systematic eect could be causing the modulation. No suggested
background process appears likely to yield modulation as large as the ob-
43
Table 6. Results of ts to Acos (t t
0
) with the residual rates of the single-hit
scintillation events, collected by DAMA/NaI, by DAMA/LIBRA and by the two ex-
periments together in the 2 4, 25, and 26 keVee energy intervals.
131
The last column
shows the C.L. obtained from the tted modulation amplitudes.
A (keVee
1
kg
1
day
1
) T =
2
(yr) t
0
(day) C.L.
DAMA/NaI
24 keVee 0.0252 0.0050 1.01 0.02 125 30 5.0
25 keVee 0.0215 0.0039 1.01 0.02 140 30 5.5
26 keVee 0.0200 0.0032 1.00 0.01 140 22 6.3
DAMA/LIBRA
24 keVee 0.0213 0.0032 0.997 0.002 139 10 6.7
25 keVee 0.0165 0.0024 0.998 0.002 143 9 6.9
26 keVee 0.0107 0.0019 0.998 0.003 144 11 5.6
DAMA Combined
24 keVee 0.0223 0.0027 0.996 0.002 138 7 8.3
25 keVee 0.0178 0.0020 0.998 0.002 145 7 8.9
26 keVee 0.0131 0.0016 0.998 0.003 144 8 8.2
served signal.
140,141
Although no possibility appears plausible, the most
likely ones (not discussed in Ref. 140) are from a possible modulation in the
rate of 3.2 keV x-rays from potassium,
142
in the rate of some muon-induced
x-ray,
143
or in the eectiveness of the phototube noise cut. Ref. 81 describes
additional possible systematic eects that also do not appear likely to be
the cause of the modulation.
Potassium-40 is a common cause of background events in dark matter
experiments due to its high abundance and 10
9
-year halife. About 10%
of the time,
40
K decays by electron capture to an excited state of
40
Ar,
which subsequently decays by emission of a 1461 keV gamma ray. Since
the daughter Ar atom is still missing a K-shell electron, 3.2 keV emerges
when an L-shell electron drops down to ll the vacancy. Since low-energy
X-rays and electrons have short interaction lengths, this low-energy de-
position essentially always appears in the parent detector where the
40
K
decays, but the 1461 keV gamma ray has a longer interaction length and
so may deposit some or all of its energy in the parent detector, other de-
tectors, or passive material such as copper. The DAMA collaboration have
counted events with the 1461 keV gamma ray in one detector and 3.2 keV
in another, and compared the rate to simulations of this process in their de-
tectors to infer the natural K contamination in their detectors is 13 ppb.
144
This rate is about right
145
to be responsible for the small peak in the overall
DAMA/LIBRA event spectrum (0.45 keVee
1
kg
1
day
1
over 1.5 keVee) at
44
about 3 keVee (see Fig. 23). A 4% modulation in the rate of the accepted
single-scatter 3.2 keVee events could cause DAMAs observed modulation.
This size modulation appears too large to be able to be caused by a modu-
lation of the trigger eciency and analysis cuts,
140
but given the similarity
of the
40
K background to the modulation signal it would be prudent for
DAMA to check the stability of triggering, analysis cuts, and overall rate
of the 3.2 keVee events that are coincident with 1461 keV gamma rays. It
is also barely imaginable that changing detector response or actual move-
ment of the K (due to changing humidity, for example) could result in a
modulation of the single-scatter rate if such a change alters the probability
that the 1461 keV gamma rays deposit any energy in the parent detector.
Therefore, it would also be useful for the DAMA collaboration to check
whether reasonable changes in their simulation could result in a dierent
rate of 3.2 keV single-hit events.
The known physical side reaction whose modulation best matches that
of DAMAs signal is the annual modulation of the muon rate due to sea-
sonal changes in the atmospheric temperature. An increase in temperature
of the stratosphere decreases its density, reducing the chance of meson in-
teractions, resulting in a larger fraction of mesons decaying into muons.
From 19911994, MACRO measured the annual modulation of the muon
rate at Gran Sasso,
146
nding the phase nearly matches that of the DAMA
signal. The maximum occurs in mid-June, a few weeks later than the best-
t phase of DAMAs signal, perhaps consistent within uncertainties. The
muon modulation also appears less regular than that of DAMAs signal.
DAMA claims that the modulation is too small for muon-induced neutron
interactions to be a signicant source of background modulation.
140
An al-
ternate possibility that has not yet been tested is that muon spallation in
NaI detectors may create a metastable isotope that decays with emission
of 3 keV.
143
The lifetime of the metastable state would have to be > 500 s
to avoid DAMAs trigger holdo time. A beam test of NaI could see if such
a line exists.
Finally, it is imaginable that an instrumental eect could be modulating
annually. For example, DAMA analysis includes a cut on the sharpness of
a pulse that is used to remove PMT noise events, which otherwise would
pollute the lowest energy bins. It is not possible to know what the tail of the
PMT noise distribution looks like, since measurement always has particle-
induced backgrounds, so it is not clear that the cut removes all PMT noise
events. It is possible that a small number of noise events passes this cut,
and the number that passes this cut modulates. Although this possibility
45
is poorly motivated, dark current in PMTs depends exponentially on tem-
perature, and it is possible that DAMAs temperature stability is not good
enough to prevent a modulation of this potential eect.
The DAMA collaboration have made some checks of eects related to a
possible modulation of noise events. They have determined that the total
number of noise events does not modulate (but they cannot check whether
the number passing the cut modulates), and they have checked (using a
high-rate calibration source) that the eciency of the cut for particle in-
teractions does not modulate. Studies of the eect of the cut position on
modulation amplitude could help rule out a possible modulation of noise
events passing the cut. If dierent cut positions all showed no modula-
tion in the particle eciency (using the calibration source) and aected
the WIMP-search modulation amplitude in a way consistent with this e-
ciency for particles, it would be strong evidence that the modulation is due
to particle origin.
Other experiments may be able to test DAMAs results more directly
soon, using similar detectors. The KIMS experiment, situated in Yangyang
Lab, Korea, has already yielded limits
56
from running four 8.7 kg CsI crys-
tals for a total exposure of 3409 kg d. Twelve detectors, for a total mass of
104.4 kg, are now installed. The ANAIS collaboration performed tests on a
NaI crystal to determine its background and test its energy threshold.
147
While a 2 keVee energy threshold was achieved, the
40
K background level
in the NaI crystals was found to be too high to allow a test of DAMAs
results. Work on producing cleaner crystals is in progress.
3.5. Directional Detectors
Although inherently dicult, detection of the direction of scattering
WIMPs would provide signicant additional information. First of all, such
a detection would provide a clear signature of the non-terrestrial nature of
the signal, since the motion of the Earth through the Galaxy results in a
predominant WIMP wind in the opposite direction, from the constella-
tion Cygnus. As shown in Fig. 24, a detector would see this wind vector
oscillate over the course of a day. Over the course of a year, this direction-
ality would repeat each sidereal day, hence rapidly going out of phase with
the solar day. With a detector able to distinguish the full direction of re-
coils (i.e. both the axis and which ends of the track are the head and tail),
10 events would be sucient to determine that the WIMP signal is not
isotropic.
74,149,150
As mentioned above in Section 2.4, directional detection
would provide excellent information on the WIMP velocity distribution.
74,75
46
Fig. 24. Approximate spin axis of the Earth relative to the WIMP wind due to the
motion of the Earth through the Galaxy. A detector at latitude +60
would see most

scattering WIMPs come predominantly from the labs ceiling at one time during the
day and from the northern side wall twelve hours later, with the pattern repeating each
sidereal day. Figure based on that in Ref. 148.
Unfortunately, recoil track lengths are too short in solid or liquid de-
tectors ( 0.1 m in a condensed matter target) for direct measurement.
While the possibility of using a detector with non-uniform directional re-
sponse has been considered (e.g. Ref. 148 and references therein), gaseous
detectors appear the most promising, despite the diculty in making them
massive enough to detect a WIMP signal. In order to make the recoil track
length long enough to be imaged ( 1 mm), traditional gas time-projection
chambers may be used if operated at low pressure (< 100 Torr). As with the
liquid noble time-projection chambers, position in the x y plane is deter-
mined by the position of charges collected (by crossed planes of wires
151
,
micropixels,
152
micromegas,
153
or via detection of electroluminescence
154
),
while position along the drift direction is determined by drift time. However,
since no prompt signal is detected, the interaction time is unknown, and
position information along the drift direction is only relative, not absolute.
Directional detectors potentially provide the best observables of any
dark matter experiments. The total charge indicates the energy of the re-
coil. The tracklength of electron recoils is much larger than that of nuclear
recoils, so comparison of the observed tracklength to the energy allows
excellent rejection of electron-recoil backgrounds. The track itself easily in-
dicates the axis of the recoil. Measurement of the amount of charge released
47
along the track can allow inference of the sense of the direction of the track
(i.e. can allow the head of the track to be distinguished from its tail). For
nuclear recoils, energies of interest are below the Bragg peak, so the energy
deposition is larger at rst, then decreases as the recoiling nucleus loses en-
ergy. Unfortunately, increased scattering near the end of the track, as well
as straggling in the ion drift, can make correct identication of the head
and tail of a track dicult.
155
The four directional detectors listed in Table 4 are all in research and
development phase, as their low masses do not yet permit competitive sen-
sitivities. Chosen gases typically maximize sensitivity to spin-dependent in-
teractions. The NEWAGE collaboration has run a small, 10-g test cell with
micropixel readout underground, achieving the best limits so far of any di-
rectional detector,
156
albeit still 5 orders of magnitude less sensitive than
the worlds best proton-spin-dependent limits. The MIMAC collaboration
has run test chambers with micromegas;
153
much eort has been concen-
trated on low-energy measurements of the quenching factors for gases of
interest. Two of the experiments, DRIFT
151
and DMTPC,
154
have demon-
strated head-tail discrimination of the track. The DMTCP measurement
was at somewhat higher energies and tracklengths than needed for a dark
matter search (> 200 keV),
157,158
while the DRIFT measurement shows
some discrimination down to 50 keV.
159
It remains to be seen if the WIMP-nucleon cross section is large enough
that one can build gas detectors with enough mass to detect the signal.
A 1-ton gas detector, with spin-independent sensitivity reach 10
8
pb,
would be about the size of the largest accelerator-beam detectors. To ob-
tain sensitivity to 10
10
pb would require a detector 5 the size of
SuperKamiokande, smaller than proposed next-generation neutrino and
proton-decay experiments. Identifying a technology to achieve adequate
spatial resolution over very large areas at reasonable cost will be a chal-
lenge. The benets of a directional detection certainly warrant continued
development to attempt to reach this lofty goal.
4. Conclusions and Prospects
Currently, CDMS II and XENON-10 are the most sensitive WIMP-search
experiments, with limits on the spin-independent WIMP-nucleon cross sec-
tions below 10
7
pb, probing the MSSM region. Threshold detectors and
KIMS, a room-temperature scintillator, have the best direct sensitivity
to spin-dependent interactions on protons, with indirect detection exper-
iments SuperKamiokande and IceCube more sensitive for some models.
48
Fig. 25. Rate of coherent neutrino interactions above a given threshold energy for Ge
(left) and Xe (right). For both the diuse supernova (DSNB, large black dashes) and
atmospheric (ATM, small green dashes) event rates, the sum of all contributing neutrino
avors is shown. The signicant background from
8
B neutrinos (red solid curve) will
prevent experiments from using threshold energies 3 keV for Xe, 5 keV for Ge,
10 keV for Ar, or 20 keV for F. Figures from Ref. 160.
Truly, a variety of technologies has been successful and continue to show
promise for the future. Signicant improvements by the end of 2010 are
likely from XENON-100, EDELWEISS, and COUPP, with many experi-
ments (LUX, WArP, XMASS, SuperCDMS, and MiniCLEAN, in addition
to XENON-100 and EDELWEISS) likely to surpass 10
8
pb sensitivity for
spin-independent interactions by 2012. The next ve years should see spin-
independent sensitivity improve to 10
9
pb, or possibly even 10
10
pb if
promising technologies can achieve the necessary background rejection. In
particular, it is unclear what is the best technology for the multiton scale
needed to achieve 10
11
pb sensitivity.
The ultimate unrejectable, unshieldable background for future WIMP-
search experiments will be coherent neutrino-nucleus interactions (see
Fig. 25).
160
A large rate of interactions of solar
8
B neutrinos will prevent
ton-scale experiments from using threshold energies 5 keV for Ge, 3 keV
for Xe, 10 keV for Ar or Si, and 15 keV for Ne or F (although sub-
traction of the expected energy spectrum would be possible, and rejection
would be possible for directional detectors.
161
) For yet larger detectors, at-
mospheric neutrinos will provide background events over the entire energy
range of the WIMP search, likely limiting the sensitivity reach of ultimate
dark matter experiments to no better than 10
12
pb.
49
A direct detection of WIMPs would warrant follow-up in order to learn
as much as possible about them. Measurement of the WIMP recoil spec-
trum with good statistics would constrain the WIMPs mass, potentially
demonstrating that a particle produced at accelerators indeed comprises
the dark matter in the galaxy. Such large statistics (provided experimental
operation is suciently stable) could also take advantage of the expected
annual modulation of the WIMP signal to conrm the extraterrestrial ori-
gin of the WIMPs and to learn more about their distribution in the galaxy.
In addition, detection using dierent target nuclei would potentially al-
low determination of both the spin-independent and spin-dependent cross
sections. A measure of the direction of the recoiling nucleus would provide
additional information on the distribution of WIMPs in the galaxy, allowing
WIMP astronomy.
Ultimately, the combination of WIMP direct and indirect detection
with studies at colliders and of the cosmic microwave background could
answer fundamental questions beyond whether WIMPs are the dark mat-
ter and neutralinos exist. These combinations can determine whether the
WIMPs are stable and whether there is non-baryonic dark matter other
than WIMPs. As thermal relics, the WIMPs could provide a window to the
early universe, or we may learn that the WIMPs must have been generated
out of thermal equilibrium. WIMP astronomy could teach us about galaxy
formation. Furthermore, the combination of information from these several
methods may constrain the particle properties signicantly better than col-
liders alone.
17,162
With the LHC taking data and more sensitive indirect
and detect detection experiments in operation, the next ve years may see
an answer to the fundamental mystery of the nature of dark matter, as well
as to other fundamental questions about the universe.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Scott Dodelson and Csaba Csaki for organizing TASI
2009. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation
grant PHY-0855525.
References
1. E. Komatsu, J. Dunkley, M. R. Nolta, C. L. Bennett, B. Gold,
G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, D. Larson, M. Limon, L. Page, D. N. Spergel,
M. Halpern, R. S. Hill, A. Kogut, S. S. Meyer, G. S. Tucker, J. L. Weiland,
E. Wollack, and E. L. Wright, Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave
50
Anisotropy Probe Observations: Cosmological Interpretation, Astrophys.
J. Supp. 180 (Feb., 2009) 330376, arXiv:0803.0547.
2. D. Tytler, J. M. OMeara, N. Suzuki, and D. Lubin, Review of Big Bang
Nucleosynthesis and Primordial Abundances, Phys. Scripta T85 (2000)
12, arXiv:astro-ph/0001318.
3. G. Steigman and M. S. Turner, Cosmological Constraints on the
Properties of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, Nucl. Phys. B253
(1985) 375.
4. B. W. Lee and S. W. Weinberg, Cosmological Lower Bound on Heavy
Neutrino Masses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 165168.
5. G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Supersymmetric Dark
Matter, Phys. Rept. 267 (1996) 195373.
6. D. Hooper, TASI 2008 Lectures on Dark Matter, in The dawn of the
LHC era (TASI 2008), pp. 709764. Jan., 2009. arXiv:0901.4090
[hep-ph].
7. J. L. Feng, Dark Matter Candidates from Particle Physics and Methods
of Detection, ArXiv e-prints (Mar., 2010) , arXiv:1003.0904. to appear
in Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics.
8. N. Weiner. these proceedings.
9. J. Ellis, T. Falk, K. A. Olive, and M. Schmitt, Constraints on neutralino
dark matter from LEP 2 and cosmology, Phys. Lett. B 413 (1997)
355364.
10. J. Edsj o and P. Gondolo, Neutralino relic density including
coannihilations, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 18791894.
11. G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Particle dark matter: Evidence,
candidates and constraints, Phys. Rept. 405 (2005) 279390,
arXiv:hep-ph/0404175.
12. H.-C. Cheng, J. L. Feng, and K. T. Matchev, Kaluza-Klein dark matter,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 211301, arXiv:hep-ph/0207125.
13. G. Servant and T. M. P. Tait, Is the lightest Kaluza-Klein particle a
viable dark matter candidate?, Nucl. Phys. B650 (2003) 391419,
14. K. Agashe and G. Servant, Warped unication, proton stability and dark
matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 231805, arXiv:hep-ph/0403143.
15. D. Hooper and S. Profumo, Dark matter and collider phenomenology of
universal extra dimensions, Phys. Rept. 453 (2007) 29115,
16. S. Arrenberg, L. Baudis, K. Kong, K. T. Matchev, and J. Yoo,
Kaluza-Klein Dark Matter: Direct Detection vis-a-vis LHC, Phys. Rev.
D78 (2008) 056002, arXiv:0805.4210 [hep-ph].
17. E. A. Baltz, M. Battaglia, M. E. Peskin, and T. Wizansky, Determination
of dark matter properties at high-energy colliders, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006)
103521, arXiv:hep-ph/0602187.
18. M. Battaglia, I. Hinchlie, and D. Tovey, Cold dark matter and the
LHC, J. Phys. G30 (2004) R217R244, arXiv:hep-ph/0406147.
19. W. H. Press and D. N. Spergel, Capture by the sun of a galactic
51
population of weakly interacting, massive particles, Astrophys. J. 296
(1985) 679684.
20. K. Freese, Can Scalar Neutrinos Or Massive Dirac Neutrinos Be the
Missing Mass?, Phys. Lett. B167 (1986) 295.
21. L. M. Krauss, M. Srednicki, and F. Wilczek, Solar System Constraints
and Signatures for Dark Matter Candidates, Phys. Rev. D33 (1986)
20792083.
22. D. D. Dixon, D. H. Hartmann, E. D. Kolaczyk, J. Samimi, R. Diehl,
G. Kanbach, H. Mayer-Hasselwander, and A. W. Strong, Evidence for a
Galactic -ray halo, New Astron. 3 (1998) 539561.
23. S. Coutu, S. W. Barwick, J. J. Beatty, A. Bhattacharyya, C. R. Bower,
C. J. Chaput, G. A. de Nolfo, M. A. Duvernois, A. Labrador, S. P. McKee,
D. M uller, J. A. Musser, S. L. Nutter, E. Schneider, S. P. Swordy,
G. Tarle, A. D. Tomasch, and E. Torbet, Cosmic-Ray Positrons: Are
There Primary Sources?, Astropart. Phys. 11 (1999) 429435.
24. M. A. DuVernois, S. W. Barwick, J. J. Beatty, A. Bhattacharyya, C. R.
Bower, C. J. Chaput, S. Coutu, G. A. de Nolfo, D. M. Lowder, S. McKee,
D. M uller, J. A. Musser, S. L. Nutter, E. Schneider, S. P. Swordy,
G. Tarle, A. D. Tomasch, and E. Torbet, Cosmic-Ray Electrons and
Positrons from 1 to 100 GeV: Measurements with HEAT and Their
Interpretation, Astrophys. J. 559 (Sept., 2001) 296303.
25. D. Hooper, D. P. Finkbeiner, and G. Dobler, Evidence Of Dark Matter
Annihilations In The WMAP Haze, Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 083012,
arXiv:0705.3655 [astro-ph].
26. PAMELA Collaboration, O. Adriani et al., An anomalous positron
abundance in cosmic rays with energies 1.5.100 GeV, Nature 458 (2009)
607609, arXiv:0810.4995 [astro-ph].
27. L. Bergstrom, T. Bringmann, and J. Edsjo, New Positron Spectral
Features from Supersymmetric Dark Matter - a Way to Explain the
PAMELA Data?, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 103520, arXiv:0808.3725
[astro-ph].
28. J. Chang et al., An excess of cosmic ray electrons at energies of 300.800
GeV, Nature 456 (2008) 362365.
29. J. Carr, G. Lamanna, and J. Lavalle, Indirect detection of dark matter,
Rept. Prog. Phys. 69 (2006) 24752512.
30. The IceCube Collaboration: J. Ahrens, Sensitivity of the IceCube
detector to astrophysical sources of high energy muon neutrinos,
Astropart. Phys. 20 (2004) 507532, arXiv:astro-ph/0305196.
31. ICECUBE Collaboration, R. Abbasi et al., Limits on a muon ux from
neutralino annihilations in the Sun with the IceCube 22-string detector,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 201302, arXiv:0902.2460 [astro-ph.CO].
32. ANTARES Collaboration, J. D. Zornoza, Dark matter search with the
ANTARES neutrino telescope, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 173 (2007)
7982.
33. G. Lim and for the ANTARES Collaboration, First results on the search
for dark matter in the Sun with the ANTARES neutrino telescope, ArXiv
52
e-prints (May, 2009) , arXiv:0905.2316.
34. J. E. Taylor, E. A. Baltz, and L. L. Wai, Will GLAST identify dark
matter?, AIP Conf. Proc. 921 (2007) 178180.
35. E. A. Baltz, B. Berenji, G. Bertone, L. Bergstr om, E. Bloom,
T. Bringmann, J. Chiang, J. Cohen-Tanugi, J. Conrad, Y. Edmonds,
J. Edsj o, G. Godfrey, R. E. Hughes, R. P. Johnson, A. Lionetto, A. A.
Moiseev, A. Morselli, I. V. Moskalenko, E. Nuss, J. F. Ormes, R. Rando,
A. J. Sander, A. Sellerholm, P. D. Smith, A. W. Strong, L. Wai, P. Wang,
and B. L. Winer, Pre-launch estimates for GLAST sensitivity to dark
matter annihilation signals, JCAP 7 (July, 2008) 13+,
arXiv:0806.2911.
36. MAGIC Collaboration, D. Elsaesser and K. Mannheim, MAGIC and
the search for signatures of supersymmetric dark matter, New Astron.
Rev. 49 (2005) 297301, arXiv:astro-ph/0409563.
37. M. Wood, G. Blaylock, S. M. Bradbury, J. H. Buckley, K. L. Byrum,
Y. C. K. Chow, W. Cui, I. de la Calle Perez, A. D. Falcone, S. J. Fegan,
J. P. Finley, J. Grube, J. Hall, D. Hanna, J. Holder, D. Horan, T. B.
Humensky, D. B. Kieda, J. Kildea, A. Konopelko, H. Krawczynski,
F. Krennrich, M. J. Lang, S. LeBohec, T. Nagai, R. A. Ong, J. S. Perkins,
M. Pohl, J. Quinn, H. J. Rose, G. H. Sembroski, V. V. Vassiliev, R. G.
Wagner, S. P. Wakely, T. C. Weekes, and A. Weinstein, A Search for
Dark Matter Annihilation with the Whipple 10 m Telescope, Astrophys.
J. 678 (May, 2008) 594605, arXiv:0801.1708.
38. A. Birkedal, K. T. Matchev, M. Perelstein, and A. Spray, Robust gamma
ray signature of WIMP dark matter, arXiv:hep-ph/0507194.
39. M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, Detectability of certain dark matter
candidates, Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 30593063.
40. J. R. Primack, D. Seckel, and B. Sadoulet, Detection of Cosmic Dark
Matter, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 38 (1988) 751807.
41. J. D. Lewin and P. F. Smith, Review of mathematics, numerical factors,
and corrections for dark matter experiments based on elastic nuclear
recoil, Astropart. Phys. 6 (1996) 87112.
42. A. Kurylov and M. Kamionkowski, Generalized analysis of
weakly-interacting massive particle searches, Phys. Rev. D69 (2004)
063503, arXiv:hep-ph/0307185.
43. D. R. Tovey, R. J. Gaitskell, P. Gondolo, Y. Ramachers, and
L. Roszkowski, A new model-independent method for extracting
spin-dependent cross section limits from dark matter searches, Phys. Lett.
B 488 (Aug., 2000) 1726, arXiv:hep-ph/0005041.
44. The CDMS II Collaboration Collaboration, Z. Ahmed et al., Dark
Matter Search Results from the CDMS II Experiment, Science 327
no. 5973, (2010) 16191621,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/327/5973/1619.pdf.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/5973/1619.
45. EDELWEISS Collaboration, E. Armengaud, C. Augier, A. Benot,
L. Berge, O. Besida, J. Bl umer, A. Broniatowski, A. Chantelauze,
53
M. Chapellier, G. Chardin, F. Charlieux, S. Collin, X. Defay, M. de Jesus,
P. di Stefano, Y. Dolgorouki, J. Domange, L. Dumoulin, K. Eitel,
J. Gascon, G. Gerbier, M. Gros, M. Hannawald, S. Herve, A. Juillard,
H. Kluck, V. Kozlov, R. Lemrani, P. Loaiza, A. Lubashevskiy,
S. Marnieros, X. Navick, E. Olivieri, P. Pari, B. Paul, S. Rozov,
V. Sanglard, S. Scorza, S. Semikh, A. S. Torrento-Coello, L. Vagneron,
M. Verdier, and E. Yakushev, First results of the EDELWEISS-II WIMP
search using Ge cryogenic detectors with interleaved electrodes, Phys.
Lett. B 687 (Apr., 2010) 294298, arXiv:0912.0805.
46. R. F. Lang, The CRESST-II Experiment, arXiv:0805.4705
[astro-ph].
47. XENON Collaboration, J. Angle et al., First Results from the
XENON10 Dark Matter Experiment at the Gran Sasso National
Laboratory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 021303, arXiv:0706.0039
[astro-ph].
48. V. N. Lebedenko, H. M. Ara ujo, E. J. Barnes, A. Bewick, R. Cashmore,
V. Chepel, A. Currie, D. Davidge, J. Dawson, T. Durkin, B. Edwards,
C. Ghag, M. Horn, A. S. Howard, A. J. Hughes, W. G. Jones, M. Joshi,
G. E. Kalmus, A. G. Kovalenko, A. Lindote, I. Liubarsky, M. I. Lopes,
R. L uscher, P. Majewski, A. S. J. Murphy, F. Neves, J. Pinto da Cunha,
R. Preece, J. J. Quenby, P. R. Scovell, C. Silva, V. N. Solovov, N. J. T.
Smith, P. F. Smith, V. N. Stekhanov, T. J. Sumner, C. Thorne, and R. J.
Walker, Results from the rst science run of the ZEPLIN-III dark matter
search experiment, Phys. Rev. D 80 no. 5, (Sept., 2009) 052010+,
arXiv:0812.1150.
49. P. Benetti, R. Acciarri, F. Adamo, B. Baibussinov, M. Baldo-Ceolin,
M. Belluco, F. Calaprice, E. Calligarich, M. Cambiaghi, F. Carbonara,
F. Cavanna, S. Centro, A. G. Cocco, F. Di Pompeo, N. Ferrari, G. Fiorillo,
C. Galbiati, V. Gallo, L. Grandi, A. Ianni, G. Mangano, G. Meng,
C. Montanari, O. Palamara, L. Pandola, F. Pietropaolo, G. L. Raselli,
M. Rossella, C. Rubbia, A. M. Szelc, S. Ventura, and C. Vignoli, First
results from a dark matter search with liquid argon at 87-K in the Gran
Sasso underground laboratory, Astropart. Phys. 28 (2008) 495507,
arXiv:astro-ph/0701286.
50. E. A. Baltz and P. Gondolo, Markov chain Monte Carlo exploration of
minimal supergravity with implications for dark matter, JHEP 10 (2004)
052, arXiv:hep-ph/0407039.
51. R. J. Gaitskell, V. Mandic, and J. Filippini. Dark matter tools working
group limit plotter, http://dmtools.brown.edu.
52. J. Angle, E. Aprile, F. Arneodo, L. Baudis, A. Bernstein, A. Bolozdynya,
L. C. C. Coelho, C. E. Dahl, L. Deviveiros, A. D. Ferella, L. M. P.
Fernandes, S. Fiorucci, R. J. Gaitskell, K. L. Giboni, R. Gomez, R. Hasty,
L. Kastens, J. Kwong, J. A. M. Lopes, N. Madden, A. Manalaysay,
A. Manzur, D. N. McKinsey, M. E. Monzani, K. Ni, U. Oberlack,
J. Orboeck, G. Plante, R. Santorelli, J. M. F. Dos Santos, P. Shagin,
T. Shutt, P. Sorensen, S. Schulte, C. Winant, and M. Yamashita, Limits
54
on Spin-Dependent WIMP-Nucleon Cross Sections from the XENON10
Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 no. 9, (Aug., 2008) 091301+,
arXiv:0805.2939.
53. V. N. Lebedenko, H. M. Ara ujo, E. J. Barnes, A. Bewick, R. Cashmore,
V. Chepel, A. Currie, D. Davidge, J. Dawson, T. Durkin, B. Edwards,
C. Ghag, M. Horn, A. S. Howard, A. J. Hughes, W. G. Jones, M. Joshi,
G. E. Kalmus, A. G. Kovalenko, A. Lindote, I. Liubarsky, M. I. Lopes,
R. L uscher, K. Lyons, P. Majewski, A. S. Murphy, F. Neves, J. P. da
Cunha, R. Preece, J. J. Quenby, P. R. Scovell, C. Silva, V. N. Solovov,
N. J. T. Smith, P. F. Smith, V. N. Stekhanov, T. J. Sumner, C. Thorne,
and R. J. Walker, Limits on the Spin-Dependent WIMP-Nucleon Cross
Sections from the First Science Run of the ZEPLIN-III Experiment,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 no. 15, (Oct., 2009) 151302+, arXiv:0901.4348.
54. S. Archambault et al., Dark Matter Spin-Dependent Limits for WIMP
Interactions on 19-F by PICASSO, Phys. Lett. B682 (2009) 185192,
arXiv:0907.0307 [hep-ex].
55. COUPP Collaboration, E. Behnke, J. I. Collar, P. S. Cooper, K. Crum,
M. Crisler, M. Hu, I. Levine, D. Nakazawa, H. Nguyen, B. Odom,
E. Ramberg, J. Rasmussen, N. Riley, A. Sonnenschein, M. Szydagis, and
T. R., Improved Spin-Dependent WIMP Limits from a Bubble
Chamber, Science 319 (2008) 933936, arXiv:0804.2886 [astro-ph].
56. KIMS Collaboration, H. S. Lee. et al., Limits on WIMP-nucleon cross
section with CsI(Tl) crystal detectors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 091301,
57. UK Dark Matter Collaboration, G. J. Alner et al., Limits on WIMP
cross-sections from the NAIAD experiment at the Boulby Underground
Laboratory, Phys. Lett. B616 (2005) 1724, arXiv:hep-ex/0504031.
58. Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, S. Desai et al., Search for dark
matter WIMPs using upward through-going muons in Super-Kamiokande,
Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 083523, arXiv:hep-ex/0404025.
59. E. I. Gates, G. Gyuk, and M. S. Turner, The Local halo density,
Astrophys. J. 449 (1995) L123L126, arXiv:astro-ph/9505039.
60. L. Bergstr om, P. Ullio, and J. H. Buckley, Observability of rays from
dark matter neutralino annihilations in the Milky Way halo, Astropart.
Phys. 9 (1998) 137162.
61. L. M. Widrow, B. Pym, and J. Dubinski, Dynamical Blueprints for
Galaxies, Astrophys. J. 679 (2008) 12391259, arXiv:0801.3414
[astro-ph].
62. S. Garbari, G. Lake, and J. I. Read, Measuring the local dark matter
density, arXiv:1001.1038 [astro-ph.GA].
63. F. J. Kerr and D. Lynden-Bell, Review of galactic constants, Mon. Not.
Royal Ast. Soc. 221 (Aug., 1986) 10231038.
64. N. W. Evans, C. M. Carollo, and P. T. de Zeeuw, Triaxial haloes and
particle dark matter detection, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 318 (2000)
65. D. G. Cerdeno and A. M. Green, Direct detection of WIMPs, in Particle
55
Dark Matter: Observations, Models and Searches, G. Bertone, ed.,
pp. 347369. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010.
arXiv:1002.1912 [astro-ph.CO].
66. M. C. Smith et al., The RAVE Survey: Constraining the Local Galactic
Escape Speed, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 379 (2007) 755772,
67. F. Donato, N. Fornengo, and S. Scopel, Eects of galactic dark halo
rotation on WIMP direct detection, Astropart. Phys. 9 (1998) 247260,
68. S. Arrenberg. CDMS Internal Note 091124.
69. C. Savage, G. Gelmini, P. Gondolo, and K. Freese, Compatibility of
DAMA/LIBRA dark matter detection with other searches, JCAP 4
(Apr., 2009) 10+, arXiv:0808.3607.
70. D. N. Spergel, The motion of the Earth and the detection of WIMPs,
Phys. Rev. D37 (1988) 1353.
71. R. H. Helm, Inelastic and Elastic Scattering of 187-Mev Electrons from
Selected Even-Even Nuclei, Phys. Rev. 104 (1956) 14661475.
72. D. Jackson, R. J. Gaitskell, and R. W. Schnee. unpublished.
73. C. Copi. private communication.
74. B. Morgan, A. M. Green, and N. J. Spooner, Directional statistics for
realistic weakly interacting massive particle direct detection experiments,
Phys. Rev. D 71 no. 10, (May, 2005) 103507+, arXiv:astro-ph/0408047.
75. B. Morgan and A. M. Green, Directional statistics for realistic weakly
interacting massive particle direct detection experiments. II. 2D readout,
Phys. Rev. D 72 no. 12, (Dec., 2005) 123501+, arXiv:astro-ph/0508134.
76. J. A. Formaggio and C. J. Marto, Backgrounds to sensitive experiments
underground, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 54 (2004) 361412.
77. D. Mei and A. Hime, Muon-induced background study for underground
laboratories, Phys. Rev. D 73 no. 5, (Mar., 2006) 053004+,
78. D. S. Akerib, M. S. Armel-Funkhouser, M. J. Attisha, C. N. Bailey,
L. Baudis, D. A. Bauer, P. L. Brink, R. Bunker, B. Cabrera, D. O.
Caldwell, C. L. Chang, M. B. Crisler, P. Cushman, M. Daal, R. Dixon,
M. R. Dragowsky, D. D. Driscoll, L. Duong, R. Ferril, J. Filippini, R. J.
Gaitskell, R. Hennings-Yeomans, D. Holmgren, M. E. Huber, S. Kamat,
A. Lu, R. Mahapatra, V. Mandic, J. M. Martinis, P. Meunier,
N. Mirabolfathi, H. Nelson, R. Nelson, R. W. Ogburn, T. A. Perera, M. C.
Issac, E. Ramberg, W. Rau, A. Reisetter, R. R. Ross, T. Saab,
B. Sadoulet, J. Sander, C. Savage, R. W. Schnee, D. N. Seitz, B. Serfass,
K. M. Sundqvist, J.-P. F. Thompson, G. Wang, S. Yellin, and B. A.
Young, Exclusion limits on the WIMP-nucleon cross section from the rst
run of the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search in the Soudan Underground
Laboratory, Phys. Rev. D 72 no. 5, (Sept., 2005) 052009/138.
79. L. Bond, J. I. Collar, J. Ely, M. Flake, J. Hall, D. Jordan, D. Nakazawa,
A. Raskin, A. Sonnenschein, and K. O. Sullivan, Development of bubble
chambers with sensitivity to WIMPs, New Astron. Rev. 49 (May, 2005)
56
271275.
80. CDMS Collaboration, R. J. Gaitskell, P. D. Barnes, A. Da Silva,
B. Sadoulet, and T. Shutt, The Statistics of background rejection in
direct detection experiments for dark matter, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.
51B (1996) 279283.
81. R. J. Gaitskell, Direct detection of dark matter, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part.
Sci. 54 (2004) 315359.
82. G. Chardin, Dark Matter Direct Detection, in Cryogenic Particle
Detection, C. Enss, ed., pp. 313357. Nov., 2004.
83. N. J. C. Spooner, Direct Dark Matter Searches, J. Phys. Soc. Jap. 76
no. 11, (Nov., 2007) 111016+, arXiv:0705.3345.
84. S. Ahlen et al., The case for a directional dark matter detector and the
status of current experimental eorts, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A25 (2010)
151, arXiv:0911.0323 [astro-ph.CO].
85. G. Bertone, ed., Particle Dark Matter: Observations, Models and Searches.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2010.
86. M. Felizardo et al., Improved acoustic instrumentation of the SIMPLE
detector, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A585 (2008) 6168.
87. PICASSO Collaboration, M. Barnabe-Heider et al., Response of
superheated droplet detectors of the PICASSO dark matter search
experiment, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A555 (2005) 184204,
arXiv:physics/0508098.
88. T. A. Girard, F. Giuliani, T. Morlat, M. Felizardo da Costa, J. I. Collar,
C. Limagne, G. Waysand, J. Puibasset, H. S. Miley, M. Auguste,
D. Boyer, A. Cavaillou, J. G. Marques, C. Oliveira, A. C. Fernandes, A. R.
Ramos, and R. C. Martins, SIMPLE dark matter search results [rapid
communication], Phys. Lett. B 621 (Aug., 2005) 233238.
89. F. Aubin, M. Auger, M. Genest, G. Giroux, R. Gornea, R. Faust, C. Leroy,
L. Lessard, J. Martin, T. Morlat, M. Piro, N. Starinski, V. Zacek,
B. Beltran, C. B. Krauss, E. Behnke, I. Levine, T. Shepherd, P. Nadeau,
U. Wichoski, S. Pospisil, I. Stekl, J. Sodomka, K. Clark, X. Dai,
A. Davour, C. Levy, A. J. Noble, and C. Storey, Discrimination of nuclear
recoils from alpha particles with superheated liquids, New J. Phys. 10
no. 10, (Oct., 2008) 103017, arXiv:0807.1536 [physics.ins-det].
90. C. E. Dahl, COUPP progress report: results from the 4kg test chamber.
at the 9th UCLA Symposium on Sources and Detection of Dark Matter
and Dark Energy in the Universe, 2010.
www.physics.ucla.edu/hep/dm10/talks/dahl.pdf.
91. A. Manzur, A. Curioni, L. Kastens, D. N. McKinsey, K. Ni, and
T. Wongjirad, Scintillation eciency and ionization yield of liquid xenon
for monoenergetic nuclear recoils down to 4 keV, Phys. Rev. C 81 no. 2,
(Feb., 2010) 025808+, arXiv:0909.1063.
92. E. Aprile and L. Baudis, Liquid noble gases, in Particle Dark Matter:
Observations, Models and Searches, G. Bertone, ed., pp. 413436.
57
93. J. A. Nikkel, R. Hasty, W. H. Lippincott, and D. N. McKinsey,
Scintillation of liquid neon from electronic and nuclear recoils,
Astropart. Phys. 29 (Apr., 2008) 161166, arXiv:astro-ph/0612108.
94. A. Minamino, K. Abe, Y. Ashie, J. Hosaka, K. Ishihara, K. Kobayashi,
Y. Koshio, C. Mitsuda, S. Moriyama, M. Nakahata, Y. Nakajima,
T. Namba, H. Ogawa, H. Sekiya, M. Shiozawa, Y. Suzuki, A. Takeda,
Y. Takeuchi, K. Taki, K. Ueshima, Y. Ebizuka, A. Ota, S. Suzuki,
H. Hagiwara, Y. Hashimoto, S. Kamada, M. Kikuchi, N. Kobayashi,
T. Nagase, S. Nakamura, K. Tomita, Y. Uchida, Y. Fukuda, T. Sato,
K. Nishijima, T. Maruyama, D. Motoki, Y. Itow, Y. D. Kim, J. I. Lee,
S. H. Moon, K. E. Lim, J. P. Cravens, and M. B. Smy, Self-shielding
eect of a single phase liquid xenon detector for direct dark matter
search, ArXiv e-prints (Dec., 2009) , arXiv:0912.2405.
95. K. Abe, J. Hosaka, T. Iida, M. Ikeda, K. Kobayashi, Y. Koshio,
A. Minamino, M. Miura, S. Moriyama, M. Nakahata, Y. Nakajima,
T. Namba, H. Ogawa, H. Sekiya, M. Shiozawa, Y. Suzuki, A. Takeda,
Y. Takeuchi, K. Ueshima, M. Yamashita, K. Kaneyuki, Y. Ebizuka,
J. Kikuchi, A. Ota, S. Suzuki, T. Takahashi, H. Hagiwara, T. Kamei,
K. Miyamoto, T. Nagase, S. Nakamura, Y. Ozaki, T. Sato, Y. Fukuda,
T. Sato, K. Nishijima, M. Sakurai, T. Maruyama, D. Motoki, Y. Itow,
H. Ohsumi, S. Tasaka, S. B. Kim, Y. D. Kim, J. I. Lee, S. H. Moon,
Y. Urakawa, M. Uchino, Y. Kamioka, and the XMASS Collaboration,
Distillation of liquid xenon to remove krypton, Astropart. Phys. 31
(May, 2009) 290296, arXiv:0809.4413.
96. M. G. Boulay, B. Cai, M. Chen, V. V. Golovko, P. Harvey, R. Mathew,
J. J. Lidgard, A. B. McDonald, P. Pasuthip, T. Pollman, P. Skensved,
K. Graham, A. L. Hallin, D. N. McKinsey, W. H. Lippincott, J. Nikkel,
C. J. Jillings, F. Duncan, B. Cleveland, and I. Lawson, Measurement of
the scintillation time spectra and pulse-shape discrimination of low-energy
beta and nuclear recoils in liquid argon with DEAP-1, ArXiv e-prints
(Apr., 2009) , arXiv:0904.2930.
97. D. McKinsey, The Mini-CLEAN experiment, Nuclear Physics B -
Proceedings Supplements 173 (2007) 152 155. Proceedings of the 7th
UCLA Symposium on Sources and Detection of Dark Matter and Dark
Energy in the Universe.
98. M. G. Boulay and A. Hime, Technique for direct detection of weakly
interacting massive particles using scintillation time discrimination in
liquid argon, Astropart. Phys. 25 (2006) 179182.
99. E. Aprile, J. Angle, F. Arneodo, L. Baudis, A. Bernstein, A. Bolozdynya,
P. Brusov, L. C. C. Coelho, C. E. Dahl, L. DeViveiros, A. D. Ferella,
L. M. P. Fernandes, S. Fiorucci, R. J. Gaitskell, K. L. Giboni, R. Gomez,
R. Hasty, L. Kastens, J. Kwong, J. A. M. Lopes, N. Madden,
A. Manalaysay, A. Manzur, D. N. McKinsey, M. E. Monzani, K. Ni,
U. Oberlack, J. Orboeck, D. Orlandi, G. Plante, R. Santorelli, J. M. F. dos
Santos, P. Shagin, T. Shutt, P. Sorensen, S. Schulte, E. Tatananni,
C. Winant, and M. Yamashita, Design and Performance of the XENON10
58
Dark Matter Experiment, ArXiv e-prints (Jan., 2010) , arXiv:1001.2834.
100. E. Aprile, L. Baudis, B. Choi, K. L. Giboni, K. Lim, A. Manalaysay, M. E.
Monzani, G. Plante, R. Santorelli, and M. Yamashita, New measurement
of the relative scintillation eciency of xenon nuclear recoils below 10
keV, Phys. Rev. C 79 no. 4, (Apr., 2009) 045807+, arXiv:0810.0274.
101. D. Y. Akimov, G. J. Alner, H. M. Ara ujo, A. Bewick, C. Bungau, A. A.
Burenkov, M. J. Carson, H. Chagani, V. Chepel, D. Cline, D. Davidge,
E. Daw, J. Dawson, T. Durkin, B. Edwards, T. Gamble, C. Chag, R. J.
Hollingworth, A. S. Howard, W. G. Jones, M. Joshi, K. Mavrokoridis,
E. Korolkova, A. Kovalenko, V. A. Kudryavtsev, I. S. Kuznetsov,
T. Lawson, V. N. Lebedenko, J. D. Lewin, P. Lightfoot, A. Lindote,
I. Liubarsky, M. I. Lopes, R. L uscher, J. E. McMillan, P. Majewski,
B. Morgan, D. Muna, A. S. Murphy, F. Neves, G. G. Nicklin, S. M. Paling,
D. Muna, J. Pinto da Cunha, S. J. S. Plank, R. Preece, J. J. Quenby,
M. Robinson, C. Silva, V. N. Solovov, N. J. T. Smith, P. F. Smith, N. J. C.
Spooner, V. Stekhanov, T. J. Sumner, C. Thorne, D. R. Tovey, E. Tziaferi,
R. J. Walker, H. Wang, J. White, and F. Wolfs, The ZEPLIN-III dark
matter detector: Instrument design, manufacture and commissioning,
Astropart. Phys. 27 (Feb., 2007) 4660, arXiv:astro-ph/0605500.
102. XENON100 Collaboration, E. Aprile and L. Baudis, Status and
Sensitivity Projections for the XENON100 Dark Matter Experiment, PoS
IDM2008 (2008) 018, arXiv:0902.4253 [astro-ph.IM].
103. S. Fiorucci, D. S. Akerib, S. Bedikian, A. Bernstein, A. Bolozdynya,
A. Bradley, D. Carr, J. Chapman, K. Clark, T. Classen, A. Curioni,
E. Dahl, S. Dazeley, L. de Viveiros, E. Druszkiewicz, R. Gaitskell, C. Hall,
C. Hernandez Faham, B. Holbrook, L. Kastens, K. Kazkaz, R. Lander,
K. Lesko, D. Malling, R. Mannino, D. McKinsey, D. Mei, J. Mock,
J. Nikkel, P. Phelps, U. Schroeder, T. Shutt, W. Skulski, P. Sorensen,
J. Spaans, T. Stiegler, R. Svoboda, M. Sweany, J. Thomson, J. Toke,
M. Tripathi, N. Walsh, R. Webb, J. White, F. Wolfs, M. Woods, and
C. Zhang, Status of the LUX Dark Matter Search, in American Institute
of Physics Conference Series, G. Alverson, P. Nath, & B. Nelson, ed.,
vol. 1200 of American Institute of Physics Conference Series, pp. 977980.
Feb., 2010.
104. L. Kaufmann and A. Rubbia, The ArDM project: A dark matter direct
detection experiment based on liquid argon, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 60
(2007) 264267, arXiv:hep-ph/0611288.
105. C. Galbiati and R. Purtschert, Discovery of underground argon with low
level of radioactive 39Ar and possible applications to WIMP dark matter
detectors, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 120 (2008) 042015, arXiv:0712.0381
[astro-ph].
106. C. Regenfus and ArDm collaboration, The argon dark matter experiment
(ArDM), J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 203 no. 1, (Jan., 2010) 012024+,
arXiv:0912.2962.
107. E. Aprile, XENON1T: a ton scale LXe dark matter experiment. at the
9th UCLA Symposium on Sources and Detection of Dark Matter and
59
Dark Energy in the Universe, 2010.
www.physics.ucla.edu/hep/dm10/talks/aprile.pdf.
108. K. Arisaka, MAX (Multi-ton Argon and Xenon TPCs). at the 9th UCLA
Symposium on Sources and Detection of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in
the Universe, 2010. www.physics.ucla.edu/hep/dm10/talks/arisaka.pdf.
109. H. Nelson, The LZ program . at the 9th UCLA Symposium on Sources
and Detection of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Universe, 2010.
www.physics.ucla.edu/hep/dm10/talks/nelson.pdf.
110. L. Baudis, DARWIN: dark matter WIMP search with noble liquids. at
the 9th UCLA Symposium on Sources and Detection of Dark Matter and
Dark Energy in the Universe, 2010.
www.physics.ucla.edu/hep/dm10/talks/baudis.pdf.
111. S. P. Ahlen et al., Limits on cold dark matter candidates from an ultralow
background germanium spectrometer, Phys. Lett. B195 (1987) 603608.
112. D. O. Caldwell et al., Laboratory limits on galactic cold dark matter ,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 510.
113. TEXONO Collaboration, S. T. Lin et al., New limits on
spin-independent and spin-dependent couplings of low-mass WIMP dark
matter with a germanium detector at a threshold of 220 eV, Phys. Rev.
D79 (2009) 061101, arXiv:0712.1645 [hep-ex].
114. C. E. Aalseth, P. S. Barbeau, D. G. Cerde no, J. Colaresi, J. I. Collar,
P. de Lurgio, G. Drake, J. E. Fast, C. H. Greenberg, T. W. Hossbach,
J. D. Kephart, M. G. Marino, H. S. Miley, J. L. Orrell, D. Reyna, R. G. H.
Robertson, R. L. Talaga, O. Tench, T. D. van Wechel, J. F. Wilkerson,
and K. M. Yocum, Experimental Constraints on a Dark Matter Origin
for the DAMA Annual Modulation Eect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 no. 25,
(Dec., 2008) 251301+, arXiv:0807.0879.
115. G. Gerbier and J. Gascon, Cryogenic detectors, in Particle Dark Matter:
116. V. Sanglard, A. Benoit, L. Berge, J. Bl umer, A. Broniatowski, B. Censier,
L. Chabert, M. Chapellier, G. Chardin, P. Charvin, S. Collin, M. de Jesus,
H. Deschamps, P. di Stefano, Y. Dolgorouky, D. Drain, L. Dumoulin,
K. Eitel, M. Fesquet, S. Fiorucci, J. Gascon, E. Gerlic, G. Gerbier,
C. Goldbach, M. Goyot, M. Gros, S. Herve, M. Horn, A. Juillard,
M. Karolak, C. Kikuchi, A. de Lesquen, M. Luca, J. Mallet, S. Marnieros,
L. Mosca, X.-F. Navick, G. Nollez, P. Pari, L. Schoeel, M. Stern,
L. Vagneron, and V. Villar, Final results of the EDELWEISS-I dark
matter search with cryogenic heat-and-ionization Ge detectors, Phys.
Rev. D 71 no. 12, (June, 2005) 122002/16.
117. S. Scorza, The EDELWEISS-II experiment, ArXiv e-prints (June, 2008)
, arXiv:0806.3147.
118. T. Shutt, M. Kesden, S. Golwala, J. Emes, J. Hellmig, B. Sadoulet, and
B. A. Young, Charge collection and electrode structures in ionization and
phonon based dark matter detectors, AIP Conf. Proc. 605: Low
Temperature Detectors 605 (Feb., 2002) 513516.
60
119. J. Gascon, First EDELWEISS-II results. at the 9th UCLA Symposium
on Sources and Detection of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the
Universe, 2010. www.physics.ucla.edu/hep/dm10/talks/gascon.pdf.
120. EDELWEISS Collaboration, A. Broniatowski, X. Defay, E. Armengaud,
L. Berge, A. Benoit, O. Besida, J. Bl umer, A. Chantelauze, M. Chapellier,
G. Chardin, F. Charlieux, S. Collin, O. Crauste, M. de Jesus, P. di
Stefano, Y. Dolgorouki, J. Domange, L. Dumoulin, K. Eitel, J. Gascon,
G. Gerbier, M. Gros, M. Hannawald, S. Herve, A. Juillard, H. Kluck,
V. Kozlov, R. Lemrani, A. Lubashevskiy, C. Marrache, S. Marnieros,
X. Navick, C. Nones, E. Olivieri, P. Pari, B. Paul, S. Rozov, V. Sanglard,
S. Scorza, S. Semikh, M. Verdier, L. Vagneron, and E. Yakushev, A new
high-background-rejection dark matter Ge cryogenic detector, Phys. Lett.
B 681 (Nov., 2009) 305309, arXiv:0905.0753.
121. G. Angloher, M. Bauer, I. Bavykina, A. Bento, A. Brown, C. Bucci,
C. Ciemniak, C. Coppi, G. Deuter, F. von Feilitzsch, D. Hau, S. Henry,
P. Hu, J. Imber, S. Ingleby, C. Isaila, J. Jochum, M. Kiefer,
M. Kimmerle, H. Kraus, J. Lanfranchi, R. F. Lang, B. Majorovits,
M. Malek, R. McGowan, V. B. Mikhailik, E. Pantic, F. Petricca,
S. Pster, W. Potzel, F. Pr obst, W. Rau, S. Roth, K. Rottler, C. Sailer,
K. Sch aner, J. Schmaler, S. Scholl, W. Seidel, L. Stodolsky, A. J. B.
Tolhurst, I. Usherov, and W. Westphal, Commissioning run of the
CRESST-II dark matter search, Astropart. Phys. 31 (May, 2009)
270276, arXiv:0809.1829.
122. R. F. Lang, G. Angloher, M. Bauer, I. Bavykina, A. Bento, A. Brown,
C. Bucci, C. Ciemniak, C. Coppi, G. Deuter, F. von Feilitzsch, D. Hau,
S. Henry, P. Hu, J. Imber, S. Ingleby, C. Isaila, J. Jochum, M. Kiefer,
M. Kimmerle, H. Kraus, J. Lanfranchi, B. Majorovits, M. Malek,
R. McGowan, V. B. Mikhailik, E. Pantic, F. Petricca, S. Pster, W. Potzel,
F. Pr obst, S. Roth, K. Rottler, C. Sailer, K. Schaner, J. Schmaler,
S. Scholl, W. Seidel, L. Stodolsky, A. J. B. Tolhurst, I. Usherov, and
W. Westphal, Electron and gamma background in CRESST detectors,
Astropart. Phys. 32 (Jan., 2010) 318324, arXiv:0905.4282.
123. H. Kraus, M. Bauer, A. Benoit, J. Bl umer, A. Broniatowski, P. Camus,
A. Chantelauze, M. Chapellier, G. Chardin, P. Christ, C. Coppi,
M. DeJesus, A. DeLesquen, H. Deschamps, P. Di Stefano, L. Dumoulin,
K. Eitel, F. von Feilitzsch, M. Fesquet, J. Gascon, G. Gerbier,
C. Goldbach, M. Gros, D. Hau, S. Henry, M. Horn, C. Isaila,
M. Kimmerle, J. Jochum, A. Juillard, R. Lemrani, M. Luca, S. Marnieros,
R. McGowan, V. Mikhailik, X.-F. Navick, T. Niinikoski, G. Nollez,
E. Pantic, P. Pari, F. Petricca, W. Potzel, F. Pr obst, W. Rau, R. F,
K. Rottler, S. Scholl, W. Seidel, V. Sanglard, M. Stern, F. Schwamm,
M. Teshima, B. Tolhurst, W. Westphal, P. Wikus, and J. Wolf, EURECA
the European future of cryogenic dark matter searches, J. Phys. Conf.
Ser. 39 (May, 2006) 139141.
124. D. S. Akerib, C. N. Bailey, D. A. Bauer, P. L. Brink, R. Bunker,
B. Cabrera, D. O. Caldwell, J. Cooley, P. Cushman, F. Dejongh, M. R.
61
Dragowsky, L. Duong, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, J. Filippini, S. R. Golwala,
D. R. Grant, J. Hall, R. Hennings-Yeomans, D. Holmgren, M. E. Huber,
K. D. Irwin, R. Mahapatra, N. Mirabolfathi, H. Nelson, L. Novak, R. W.
Ogburn, M. Pyle, X. Qiu, E. Ramberg, W. Rau, A. Reisetter, T. Saab,
B. Sadoulet, J. Sander, R. L. Schmitt, R. W. Schnee, D. N. Seitz,
B. Serfass, K. M. Sundqvist, A. Tomada, S. Yellin, J. Yoo, and B. A.
Young, Present Status of the SuperCDMS program, Journal of Low
Temperature Physics 151 (May, 2008) 818823.
125. CDMS Collaboration, T. Bruch et al., CDMS-II to SuperCDMS: WIMP
search at a zeptobarn, arXiv:1001.3037 [astro-ph.IM].
126. P. Brink, SuperCDMS and GEODM. at the 9th UCLA Symposium on
Sources and Detection of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Universe,
2010. www.physics.ucla.edu/hep/dm10/talks/brink.pdf.
127. R. Bernabei, P. Belli, R. Cerulli, F. Montecchia, M. Amato, G. Ignesti,
A. Incicchitti, D. Prosperi, C. J. Dai, H. L. He, H. H. Kuang, and J. M.
Ma, Search for WIMP annual modulation signature: results from
DAMA/NaI-3 and DAMA/NaI-4 and the global combined analysis, Phys.
Lett. B 480 (2000) 2331.
128. R. Bernabei, P. Belli, F. Montecchia, W. di Nicolantonio, G. Ignesti,
A. Incicchitti, D. Prosperi, C. J. Dai, L. K. Ding, H. H. Kuang, and J. M.
Ma, Performances of the 100 kg NaI(Tl) set-up of the DAMA experiment
at Gran Sasso, Nuovo Cim. A112 (1999) 545575.
129. R. Bernabei, P. Belli, F. Cappella, R. Cerulli, F. Montecchia, F. Nozzoli,
A. Incicchitti, D. Prosperi, C. J. Dai, H. H. Kuang, J. M. Ma, and Z. P.
Ye, Dark Matter Particles in the Galactic Halo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13
(2004) 21272159.
130. R. Bernabei, P. Belli, A. Bussolotti, F. Cappella, R. Cerulli, C. J. Dai,
A. DAngelo, H. L. He, A. Incicchitti, H. H. Kuang, J. M. Ma, A. Mattei,
F. Montecchia, F. Nozzoli, D. Prosperi, X. D. Sheng, and Z. P. Ye, The
DAMA/LIBRA apparatus, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 592 (July, 2008)
297315, arXiv:0804.2738.
131. R. Bernabei, P. Belli, F. Cappella, R. Cerulli, C. J. Dai, A. DAngelo,
H. L. He, A. Incicchitti, H. H. Kuang, J. M. Ma, F. Montecchia,
F. Nozzoli, D. Prosperi, X. D. Sheng, and Z. P. Ye, First results from
DAMA/LIBRA and the combined results with DAMA/NaI, Eur. Phys.
J. C56 (Aug., 2008) 333355, arXiv:0804.2741 [astro-ph].
132. R. Bernabei, P. Belli, F. Montecchia, F. Nozzoli, F. Cappella,
A. Incicchitti, D. Prosperi, R. Cerulli, C. J. Dai, H. L. He, H. H. Kuang,
J. M. Ma, X. H. Ma, X. D. Sheng, Z. P. Ye, R. G. Wang, and Y. J. Zhang,
Possible implications of the channeling eect in NaI(Tl) crystals, Eur.
Phys. J. C53 (Jan., 2008) 205213, arXiv:0710.0288.
133. D. S. Akerib, M. J. Attisha, C. N. Bailey, L. Baudis, D. A. Bauer, P. L.
Brink, P. P. Brusov, R. Bunker, B. Cabrera, D. O. Caldwell, C. L. Chang,
J. Cooley, M. B. Crisler, P. Cushman, M. Daal, R. Dixon, M. R.
Dragowsky, D. D. Driscoll, L. Duong, R. Ferril, J. Filippini, R. J.
Gaitskell, S. R. Golwala, D. R. Grant, R. Hennings-Yeomans,
62
D. Holmgren, M. E. Huber, S. Kamat, S. Leclercq, A. Lu, R. Mahapatra,
V. Mandic, P. Meunier, N. Mirabolfathi, H. Nelson, R. Nelson, R. W.
Ogburn, T. A. Perera, M. Pyle, E. Ramberg, W. Rau, A. Reisetter, R. R.
Ross, B. Sadoulet, J. Sander, C. Savage, R. W. Schnee, D. N. Seitz,
B. Serfass, K. M. Sundqvist, J.-P. F. Thompson, G. Wang, S. Yellin,
J. Yoo, and B. A. Young, Limits on Spin-Independent Interactions of
Weakly Interacting Massive Particles with Nucleons from the Two-Tower
Run of the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 no. 1,
(Jan., 2006) 011302/15.
134. C. J. Copi and L. M. Krauss, Comparing WIMP interaction rate
detectors with annual modulation detectors, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003)
103507, arXiv:astro-ph/0208010.
135. N. Bozorgnia, Channeling in Direct Dark Matter. at the 2010 Snowbird
Workshop on Particle Astrophysics, Astronomy & Cosmology
(SNOWPAC), 2010. www.physics.utah.edu/snowpac/Snowpac
talks/Snowpac Finished Sessions/.../Bozorgnia.pdf.
136. S. Chang, G. D. Kribs, D. Tucker-Smith, and N. Weiner, Inelastic Dark
Matter in Light of DAMA/LIBRA, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 043513,
arXiv:0807.2250 [hep-ph].
137. J. L. Feng, J. Kumar, and L. E. Strigari, Explaining the DAMA Signal
with WIMPless Dark Matter, Phys. Lett. B670 (2008) 3740,
arXiv:0806.3746 [hep-ph].
138. R. Foot, Mirror dark matter and the new DAMA/LIBRA results: A
simple explanation for a beautiful experiment, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008)
043529, arXiv:0804.4518 [hep-ph].
139. S. Andreas, T. Hambye, and M. H. G. Tytgat, WIMP dark matter, Higgs
exchange and DAMA, JCAP 0810 (2008) 034, arXiv:0808.0255
[hep-ph].
140. R. Bernabei et al., On the investigation of possible systematics in WIMP
annual modulation search, Eur. Phys. J. C18 (2000) 283292.
141. R. Bernabei, P. Belli, F. Cappella, R. Cerulli, F. Montechia, F. Nozzoli,
A. Incicchitti, D. Prosperi, C. J. Dai, H. H. Kuang, J. M. Ma, and Z. P.
Ye, Dark Matter search, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 26N1 no. 1, (Jan., 2003)
142. S. Golwala. private communication.
143. S. Klein. private communication via Bernard Sadoulet.
144. R. Bernabei. private communication.
145. V. A. Kudryavtsev, M. Robinson, and N. J. C. Spooner, The expected
background spectrum in NaI dark matter detectors and the DAMA
result, Astropart. Phys. 33 (Mar., 2010) 9196, arXiv:0912.2983.
146. MACRO Collaboration, M. Ambrosio et al., Seasonal variations in the
underground muon intensity as seen by MACRO, Astropart. Phys. 7
(1997) 109124.
147. J. Amare et al., ANAIS status report, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 203 (2010)
012044.
148. N. Spooner, Directional detectors, in Particle Dark Matter:
63
149. C. J. Copi, J. Heo, and L. M. Krauss, Directional sensitivity, WIMP
detection, and the galactic halo, Phys. Lett. B461 (1999) 4348,
150. C. J. Copi and L. M. Krauss, Angular signatures for galactic halo WIMP
scattering in direct detectors: Prospects and challenges, Phys. Rev. D63
(2001) 043507, arXiv:astro-ph/0009467.
151. G. J. Alner, H. Araujo, A. Bewick, S. Burgos, M. J. Carson, J. C. Davies,
E. Daw, J. Dawson, J. Forbes, T. Gamble, M. Garcia, C. Ghag, M. Gold,
S. Hollen, R. J. Hollingworth, A. S. Howard, J. A. Kirkpatrick, V. A.
Kudryavtsev, T. B. Lawson, V. Lebedenko, J. D. Lewin, P. K. Lightfoot,
I. Liubarsky, D. Loomba, R. Luscher, J. E. McMillan, B. Morgan,
D. Muna, A. S. Murphy, G. G. Nicklin, S. M. Paling, A. Petkov, S. J. S.
Plank, R. M. Preece, J. J. Quenby, M. Robinson, N. Sanghi, N. J. T.
Smith, P. F. Smith, D. P. Snowden-It, N. J. C. Spooner, T. J. Sumner,
D. R. Tovey, J. Turk, E. Tziaferi, and R. J. Walker, The DRIFT-II dark
matter detector: Design and commissioning, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 555
(Dec., 2005) 173183.
152. H. Nishimura et al., Tracking performance of the NEWAGE-0.3a
direction- sensitive dark matter detector, Astropart. Phys. 31 (2009)
185191.
153. C. Grignon et al., A prototype of a directional detector for non-baryonic
dark matter search: MIMAC (Micro-TPC Matrix of Chambers), JINST 4
(2009) P11003, arXiv:0909.0654 [astro-ph.IM].
154. G. Sciolla et al., The DMTPC project, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 179 (2009)
012009, arXiv:0903.3895 [astro-ph.IM].
155. P. Majewski, D. Muna, D. P. Snowden-It, and N. J. C. Spooner,
Simulations of the Nuclear Recoil Head-Tail Signature in Gases Relevant
to Directional Dark Matter Searches, Astropart. Phys. 34 (2010)
284292, arXiv:0902.4430 [physics.ins-det].
156. K. Miuchi et al., First underground results with NEWAGE-0.3a
direction- sensitive dark matter detector, Phys. Lett. B686 (2010) 1117,
arXiv:1002.1794 [astro-ph.CO].
157. D. Dujmic, H. Tomita, M. Lewandowska, S. Ahlen, P. Fisher,
S. Henderson, A. Kaboth, G. Kohse, R. Lanza, J. Monroe, A. Roccaro,
G. Sciolla, N. Skvorodnev, R. Vanderspek, H. Wellenstein, and
R. Yamamoto, Observation of the head-tail eect in nuclear recoils of
low-energy neutrons, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 584 (Jan., 2008) 327333,
arXiv:0708.2370.
158. D. Dujmic et al., Improved measurement of the head-tail eect in nuclear
recoils, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 120 (2008) 042030, arXiv:0801.2687
[astro-ph].
159. S. Burgos, E. Daw, J. Forbes, C. Ghag, M. Gold, C. Hagemann, V. A.
Kudryavtsev, T. B. Lawson, D. Loomba, P. Majewski, D. Muna, A. S.
Murphy, G. G. Nicklin, S. M. Paling, A. Petkov, S. J. S. Plank,
64
M. Robinson, N. Sanghi, D. P. Snowden-It, N. J. C. Spooner, J. Turk,
and E. Tziaferi, First measurement of the head-tail directional nuclear
recoil signature at energies relevant to WIMP dark matter searches,
Astropart. Phys. 31 (May, 2009) 261266, arXiv:0809.1831.
160. L. E. Strigari, Neutrino Coherent Scattering Rates at Direct Dark Matter
Detectors, New J. Phys. 11 (2009) 105011, arXiv:0903.3630
[astro-ph.CO].
161. S. Henderson, J. Monroe, and P. Fisher, The Maximum Patch Method
for Directional Dark Matter Detection, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 015020,
162. G. Bertone, D. G. Cerdeno, M. Fornasa, R. R. de Austri, and R. Trotta,
Identication of Dark Matter particles with LHC and direct detection
data, arXiv:1005.4280 [hep-ph].

Introduction To Dark Matter Experiments

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Introduction To Dark Matter Experiments

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

January 28, 2011 1:7 WSPC - Proceedings Trim Size: 9in x 6in SchneeTASIPDF

Department of Physics, Syracuse University,

and the mass M

, these parameters contain all the

; dierent experiments produce limits on

by translating limits on the WIMP-nucleus cross-section

even for low-mass WIMPs (see Fig. 10).

(from Eqn. 19),

would see most

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi